How about pills, Mr. Gibson?

Gibson is on record as saying that, if steroids had been available to him, he has grave doubts as to whether he would have turned them down. As best I can tell, he took few greenies, possibly none, although it's hard to believe never, and he has never said never. What I mostly get out of guys from the 1960s is that greenies were a good cure for hangovers and short sleep. This is true (I was a teenager in the 1960s, and took greenies myself). Whether anyone took them to improve a sober, well-slept performance, I don't know. But if you want to challenge players from the 1960s about PEDs, Gibson is a lousy place to start. He has said repeatedly that he has no problems with the steroids crowd and understands the temptation. That's not a steroid puritan or accuser. You can find MUCH better targets. - Brock Hanke

I believe there is a baseball digest article out there about his WS matchup against McClain in which the author states that both were gobbling pills before the game. I believe he said Gibson was ingesting muscle relaxers.

But if you want to challenge players from the 1960s about PEDs, Gibson is a lousy place to start.

But he is a great place to start if you wish to challenge his opinion that steroids are a little different than other forms of cheating.

But he is a great place to start if you wish to challenge his opinion that steroids are a little different than other forms of cheating.

It is a little different, why would anyone argue otherwise? Mind you, I personally think roid usage is lower on the cheating scale than a spitball, but the vast majority of opinions are the opposite. Just like I don't see anything wrong with betting on your own games, MLB, and many purists see it differently due to slippery slope issues about "could be's" instead of issues about actualities.

But I don't see how you can say that roid usage is the same as greenie usage.

I don't see anything wrong with betting on your own games

I don't think it's just purists who see this as a problem.

But he is a great place to start if you wish to challenge his opinion that steroids are a little different than other forms of cheating.

I don't know, this sounds like arguing for arguing's sake. Steroid use is literally different than other forms of cheating just because, you know, it is, by definition. He prefaces it with the word "little" and, for that matter, he doesn't explicitly say that it's a "little" worse (although, granted it's kind of implied), just a "little different". That quote by Gibson is about as close to a neutral comment on the subject as one could make. Whichever side of the "roids are terrible; OMG, the children, and the Hall-of-Fame!!!" argument you're on, I would think there's a long line of guys expressing opinions more deserving of outrage than what Gibson says here.

I don't know, this sounds like arguing for arguing's sake. Steroid use is literally different than other forms of cheating just because, you know, it is, by definition. He prefaces it with the word "little" and, for that matter, he doesn't explicitly say that it's a "little" worse (although, granted it's kind of implied), just a "little different". That quote by Gibson is about as close to a neutral comment on the subject as one could make. Whichever side of the "roids are terrible; OMG, the children, and the Hall-of-Fame!!!" argument you're on, I would think there's a long line of guys expressing opinions more deserving of outrage than what Gibson says here.

Exactly. Gibson isn't saying anything negative or positive about roids, just admitting the obvious, that it's a different type of cheating Other forms of cheating are 1. altering something on the field 2. unethically getting information about the opposition or 3. day to day stimulants that have hardly any consequences outside of one game. Roids go into a different category, so it is a little different.

I don't think it's just purists who see this as a problem.

I don't think casual fans have a problem with betting on the game. They don't do that whole alternate world possibility crap of "if he bets on the game and is in to the gamblers big time, he might be convinced to throw a game" argument or the "if he bets on games he's going to try harder to win" argument or "if he doesn't bet on a game it signals something to the bookies"

Most real people say "I particpate in sport like activities(we'll call it golf or bowling etc) and I bet on it all the time, I don't see what the big deal is, heck the owners of every both teams every year make a public bet on their team in the world series"

I suspect, if you polled them, most casual fans WOULD have a problem with betting on the game. The closer gambling interests get to the clubhouse, the worse the possibilities get - in THIS universe, as has been shown in many sports many times.

I suspect, if you polled them, most casual fans WOULD have a problem with betting on the game. The closer gambling interests get to the clubhouse, the worse the possibilities get - in THIS universe, as has been shown in many sports many times.

You really think so? I guess my friends are a lot different. I don't think I've ever actually met someone in real life(other than Sabr events) that thinks Pete Rose doesn't belong in the hall of fame. They just don't see what the big deal is about. I can go to my bowling alley during league and poll the 150 or so people in the lanes, and if even 10 of them think Pete Rose shouldn't go in the hall, I would be shocked. I know when I have open conversations about the topic, that I'm the only one who argues FOR banning Pete Rose.

At least on the roid issue, I've run into equal numbers on both sides of the street pretty routinely.

Might as well do a poll, if you have a facebook account, put a poll up right now asking "should Pete Rose be kept out of the Hall of Fame for gambling on baseball" (I added that I asked all my friends to respond regardless of whether they are baseball fans) Do not add anything to the poll about his own team etc. Just whether he should be banned for betting on baseball.

I think an often underrated factor here -- if only because it occurred quite a while ago now, but I still think it's extremely relevant -- is that fans had it relentlessly hammered into their heads for about 25 straight years that Pete Rose represented everything that was good about baseball.

If players like Albert Belle (to coin a phrase) who were already disliked were accused of betting on their own team to win, the reaction would be totally different, and positions and arguments would be altered accordingly.

That's how people (fail to) reason, unfortunately.

Mind you, I personally think roid usage is lower on the cheating scale than a spitball, but the vast majority of opinions are the opposite.

At the latest SABR convention, I met a fan who said this:

"To me, a player jogging to first on a routine grounder is more damaging to the sport than a player using steroids."

...So that's the OTHER extreme.

"To me, a player jogging to first on a routine grounder is more damaging to the sport than a player using steroids."

Well...there goes Robbie Cano's chances for the HOF.

Although Yaz did make it...

If players like Albert Belle (to coin a phrase) who were already disliked were accused of betting on their own team to win, the reaction would be totally different, and positions and arguments would be altered accordingly.

You are probably right.

I still use Pete Rose as the example of how players in the old days used to "not run out every at bat" I mean, if Pete Rose had the reputation of running out every at bat, by basic logic, that means it was something extraordinary that he was doing, which of course means not everyone was running out every at bat.

The only evidence of players ever running out every at bat as the norm, would be if you found an era, in which a competitor like Cobb, Durocher, etc weren't praised for their competitiveness. The fact that they stand out, is proof that it is the exception, not the rule.

To me, a player jogging to first on a routine grounder is more damaging to the sport than a player using steroids."

To me, it does depend on the player. There were Cardinal fans bagging on Albert Pujols for doing that when he had his foot problems. I thought those fans were silly and also never actually watched the game. Albert ran when the play was in doubt, and is as an aggressive baserunner as there is in the game today(when you factor in his speed) finding fault with Albert's play takes a certain amount of effort. (exception being, every opposing fan has a legitimate gripe against his homerun trot)

I still use Pete Rose as the example of how players in the old days used to "not run out every at bat" I mean, if Pete Rose had the reputation of running out every at bat, by basic logic, that means it was something extraordinary that he was doing, which of course means not everyone was running out every at bat.

Pete used to run out walks also, so that's part of where his singular reputation stems.

There have always been players who don't run out balls, and there have always been players who have. Whether the percentage is higher or lower now than 30-60-90 years ago I neither know nor care. I find most arguments against the practice, other than for existing injury, to be rather foolish.

Other than the obvious 1919 case, you can look at many European match fixing scandals as proof of what can happen when people involved with a sport start to gamble. They are STILL handing out new penalties for the one in Serie A six years ago.

I find most arguments against the practice, other than for existing injury, to be rather foolish

Agree 100%. If Kirk Gibson hits a rope down the line instead of over the fence in his desperation PA against Eckersley, it's fine with me if he hobbles to first. Otherwise, people, you are getting paid to run out ground balls, and how many freaking times a night do you have to do it, and how much is it going to wear you out to actually play the game hard? Sorry for all the emphasis. There are areas in which to pace yourself over a 162-game season, but not trying during actual game situations is not one of them.

#16. Have a look at international one day and 20/20 cricket. It's an absolute farce as Indian bookies control the outcome of many matches. Many players have been banned at certain times over the past 10 years and it's still rife. The ICB seemingly has no way to stamp it out of the game.

I'm thoroughly amazed the PBA didn't ever have this problem. Considering damn near EVERY bowler is a gambler of some kind. And half the tour is either in Vegas or Reno. And we get paid next to nothing compared to many other sports. If we had odds set up in Vegas, it would be very easy for a bookie to make it worth our while to dump matches.

Other than the obvious 1919 case, you can look at many European match fixing scandals as proof of what can happen when people involved with a sport start to gamble. They are STILL handing out new penalties for the one in Serie A six years ago.

I don't argue against the possibilities, I argue against penalizing because of the possibilities. Every piece of evidence against Pete shows basically he gambled and that he never took money to fix a game. He didn't cross the ultimate line. He crossed lesser lines to be sure, and should be punished accordingly for crossing those lines.

(so far my survey has 10 responses and all ten say he shouldn't be banned from the hall of fame for gambling on baseball)

As the rules are, he can't get in. Gambling on baseball puts you on the ineligible list. If you are on the ineligible list, you can't be in the HOF. No matter how much people may want him in, a rule has to change. Either baseball allows people to gamble on baseball, which should NEVER happen, or the HOF allows ineligible players to go in. Which can be done, but is not likely in my lifetime.

As the rules are, he can't get in. Gambling on baseball puts you on the ineligible list. If you are on the ineligible list, you can't be in the HOF. No matter how much people may want him in, a rule has to change. Either baseball allows people to gamble on baseball, which should NEVER happen, or the HOF allows ineligible players to go in. Which can be done, but is not likely in my lifetime.

That wasn't the rule at the time when he broke it, they changed the rule to keep him out, they could always change it back.

Not that I'm actually arguing for him or not, I'm just trying to point out, that outside of hardcore fans, nobody sees this as a reason to keep him out.

It would not bother me either way if he is in or not. We all know he's good enough. Its really just a lplaque in a museum. Glenn Allison is s similar case in bowling. HOF bowler in the HOF, but has the first perfect ever 900 and its not recognized by the sport governing body because of an archaic rule. Everyone knows he was the first and people rail about it on bowling forums all the time. But because of the story, its more well known than any of the others that have been thrown since. Hardly anyone can name one person on the list outside of him. So, the recognition is there. Same with Rose. The recognition is there. Only a small piece of hardware is missing.

Edit: My keyboard sucks.

That wasn't the rule at the time when he broke it, they changed the rule to keep him out, they could always change it back.

It wasn't written that way, but it was damn well understood. Pete knew if he bet on baseball, he wasn't going into the Hall of Fame. Placement on the permanently inelgible list was absolutely considered a de facto HoF ban. The Hall just formally codified it after his placement on the ineligible list to cut off any potential mass vote for Pete (which, I firmly believe, never would have happened in any meaningful numbers).

Hardly anyone can name one person on the list outside of him.

Jeremy Sonnenfeld, I only remember, because I interviewed him for a paper I worked at in Lincoln at the time in winter '97. He was a little younger than me, so maybe 20? He did it at Sun Valley Lanes off West O Street in Lincoln, which is about 32 lanes. I always bowled like #### there. If I recall he rolled this three games on six different lanes during some junior tournament. I think he left U of Nebraska and transferred to Western Ill. He was the first sanctioned 900, though I do know the name Glenn Alison.

Jeremy Sonnenfeld, I only remember, because I interviewed him for a paper I worked at in Lincoln at the time in winter '97. He was a little younger than me, so maybe 20? He did it at Sun Valley Lanes off West O Street in Lincoln, which is about 32 lanes. I always bowled like #### there. If I recall he rolled this three games on six different lanes during some junior tournament. I think he left U of Nebraska and transferred to Western Ill. He was the first sanctioned 900, though I do know the name Glenn Alison.

Was he the guy who bowled it at another house because his house was closed when he had to prebowl?