|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, May 29, 2008
This is disgusting news. Absolutely disgusting…The Dan Patrick Show is still on the air?
Pete Rose said on The Dan Patrick Show on Tuesday that he bet around $2,000 per game on the Reds while he was managing them.
“It was like $2,000. That’s it,” Rose said in the interview. “And it didn’t change—because I know you’re going to say, Well betting’s all about pitching and stuff like that—I didn’t care who was pitching for me or who was pitching for the opposition. I just made it easy for the guys making the bets and just bet this much every game and that’s the way we did it.”
In his 2004 book, My Prison Without Bars, Rose had admitted to betting $1,000 per game as manager of the Reds, starting in 1987, and said he bet $2,000 on football games. The $2,000 figure for baseball bets was mentioned in 1989’s Dowd Report, the findings of baseball’s investigation into Rose’s gambling, but Rose had never previously confirmed that amount.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Maddon on Red Sox beaning Luke Scott: 'I think it's ridiculous, I think it's absurd, idiotic' (1 - 7:23am, May 26)Last: zachtomaNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (6 - 7:16am, May 26)Last: Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (30 - 7:15am, May 26)Last: baudibNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (19 - 7:11am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (10 - 7:09am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (88 - 6:12am, May 26)Last: LassusNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (59 - 5:24am, May 26)Last: bjhankeNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1834 - 3:06am, May 26)Last: SpiveyNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (8 - 2:43am, May 26)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFish
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I'm conceptually OK with the latter - kinda the difference between the punishment for drunk driving and the punishment for vehicular homicide while drunk - but the former makes no sense to me. The punishment as established is intended to discourage the very activity he undertook, and it has no teeth if not enforced. We don't know if it led to throwing a game at the behest of his bookie, but that doesn't matter so much. The punishment was set to be severe in order to discourage players from getting to that point.
Who does that? MLB's indictment of Rose is, without a doubt, based on a slippery slope concept. Of course, that is clearly spelled out in the rules, and there is nothing wrong with an institution protecting itself from a familiar pathway of human pathology.
It was also clear that Rose was slipping right along on the slope: debts, tax evasion, hanging out with hoodlums. My guess is that if not for these "what if" actions becoming actions, MLB would have turned the other way to his gambling. Did it lead to games being thrown, or any other acts of dishonesty along those lines? We don't know, but it's easy to see how things could have ended up there if he hadn't been stopped. And that's reason enough to throw him out on his butt and never let him back in.
You can get 5-6% with an online bookmaker. If you're betting heavily on Betfair you can get away with 2% on the net winnings on a market(vital that it is the net if you're doing arbitrage or market making).
Sports have a vital interest to stay free of internal bettors so that external bettors will stay interested.
Right; once people start wondering whether the person altered his performance based on his betting, MLB has already lost.
Although what you mention is a certainly a concern, nothing like that remotely happened with Rose -- that type of thing is very easy to check with gamelogs and would have been an immediate red flag in the betting world at that time. Rose was smarter than that. Your overall point about a "internal bettor" is very valid though.
I agree that it's all about the theoretical possibilities of what could happen, and I'm perfectly fine with keeping him out of baseball for violating that basic principle, although I'm fairly certain that there are dozens of hof'ers who violated the exact same rule in their time. And I would be willing to bet right now that a good investigation would easily find 30-100 current MLB players that violate this exact same rule even after knowing the consequences.
As I said multiple times, I know I'm in the minority of this opinion, but I don't really think the banning from the hof, coincides with the crime committed. It's just me, and I know I'm not going to change anyones opinion on the issue, it's just the way I feel. Rose is a scumbag undoubtedly but that doesn't take away from his on field accomplishments which is deserving of hof enshrinement. heck enshrine him and don't invite him to the ceremony.
I don't either! I am a casual $2 horseplayer, and I don't think that $2 is morally different from $2000, or that casual is morally different from continual. I just want to bet on clean races.
Correct. MLB has the right to set its rules. Pete Rose knew the rules and he knew the consequences of breaking those rules. He did it anyway, and got caught. But now he wants to get out of the punishment. I absolutely HATE this attitude. You may argue that the rule is too harsh, but it was the rule when Pete Rose broke it and he knew it. If Pete Rose thinks the rule is too harsh then he should have gotten out of baseball.
MLB says "follow our rules if you want to be in MLB". Rose chose not to.
I don't think people are arguing that gambling is "evil"; I think they're arguing that gambling is something that harms MLB and therefore MLB is justified in cracking down hard on it. And since major league baseball is something we want to see protected and preserved, we agree with MLB's actions.
I know these are guesses on your part (dozens of HOFers and 30-100 current major leaguers), but you haven't the slighest shred of evidence to support these guesstimates, which seem wildly fantastical in the face of such.
Well, we don't see lots of participants in MLB getting caught up in gambling scandals, so the punishment can't be all that ineffective as a deterrent -- especially since you claim that so many people are naturally predisposed to gambling.
We also didn't see the popularity of MLB decrease in the wake of the Rose scandal, so the actions MLB took to show their fans that this wasn't something they're willing to tolerate can't have been so out of touch.
But you don't find it at all incongruous to honor someone who by his very own agreement is no longer eligible to participate in the game?
reminds me of a line from Sports Night have to paraphrase here.
"When a rich white boy compares himself to Rosa Parks, I stop listening"
Robert Guillome(sp) to one of the broadcasters on Sports Night
But Rose is not being punished for the "type of human being he is." He's not being punished because he likes to gamble. He's being punished in accordance with Major League Rule 21, and he agreed that MLB had a factual basis with which to impose the penalty on him. That separates him from all of the other people you mention.
This isn't about "personality."
It makes is seem like a crock of dung, but he did say he bet "like $2000 a game."
And well Rose could have "bet $2000 on each game" but that's really just an expression, and the point is that the payoff would vary with the odds. Say the odds were 7-8. If the Reds were favored, he'd only win $2000, but at 8-5 he'd lose $3200. And if the Reds were the dog, he'd only lose the $2000, and at 7-5 he'd win $2800. As many people have pointed out, the only way you can win or lose $2000 on a bet is if you're betting with your neighbor and no odds or vig is involved.
With football it's different, but even there you're always laying 11 to 10 with most offline bookies, although if you're a big time fish like Rose obviously was, a bookie wanting to keep his action might have cut the vig to 5%.
There was a wonderful older bookie I used to know at the pool room whom I introduced my former boss to (this was over 30 years ago), and after I'd quit and started my own store the bookie told me that this guy was so clueless that he used to call him on Sunday mornings sometimes and tell him to put down $500 each on "all the (NFL) dogs." This was his idea of a "system." The bookie never sliced the vig, but he did let this guy stiff him once or twice on a fairly big bet, because he knew that in the long run it was like stealing, this guy was so f*ck*ng dumb. He was almost as dumb as Pete Rose.
And everyone has to remember, I am serious when I say that I doubt that there has ever been a mlb locker room which didn't have some version of someone violating the rule.
The Nobel Prize Committee is proud to inform you that you have been awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Moral Relativism.
and at the time Rose was playing, the HOF didn't follow mlb rules. it was retroactively changed after his "conviction" so how was he supposed to know that the punishment would be changed to make an example of him?
Once again, I care more about the fairness of the rule, than the actual written rule. that is me. No amount of debating is going to be able to change my opinion on that.
So your argument is that it's not "fair" to keep Rose out of the HOF because he said to himself, "Gee, I can freely violate MLB's rules against betting, and even if they catch me and punish me, the HOF has no rule that I'll be kept off the ballot!"
That's your appeal to "fairness"?
It falls on deaf ears with me.
my comment would have been directed at Pete Rose in this case.
but back to his discussion of this...he may feel he is justifying himself with all this, what he is really doing is alienating the people that could get him back in baseball or into the hof.
If he were eligible for the HOF i doubt he could get 10% now...he has done such a sleazy job of telling his story.
I've said it before when the rose case was discussed, when he was banned there was probably a verbal agreement that if he made amends and cleaned his life up, especially if he completely stopped gambling at all, he would be reinstated in a couple of years.
But Giamatti died, Rose tried to bluff his way back in and then got mad and stupid as time went by. He thought his image would let him get by.....and instead has become the poster boy for what happens when you are addicted to gambling.
there has not been a time when gambling was not a big no-no in baseball, and for very good reason. No other sport has had a scandal to match the black sox scandal, the randomness of baseball makes it very susceptible to subtle throwing of a game.
When Rose was banned it was just a few years after MLB had forbidden a couple of the biggest stars in living history from even attending baseball games because they had a very slight connection with gambling institutions. And that is just one small part of a continuing and aggressive stance towards gambling.
To belittle either the offense or the appropriateness of the punishment that rose chose is revisionism at its most offensive.
I made that very bet on a game like that a year earlier and lost.
What do you mean by "got stupid"? Rose has never exactly come off as the sharpest pencil in the box.
You might want to qualify that as "no other PRO sport". The last time I checked, the NCAA has had more than its fair share of point shaving scandals, and games being thrown.
That's because you forgot to check who was starting at 3B for the Tigers. You were cursed, man.
Once again, I'm fine with Rose being banned from any MLB job. I'm not fine with his exclusion from events or the hof, I just don't feel it matches his actual crimes. The fact that Rose is a scumbag makes it easier for people to accept his punishment, but that doesn't mean I will ever agree with keeping him out of the hall, and that I think that Shoeless Joes crime was 10 times worse, and I would argue that Cap Anson among others did more active harm to baseball than Rose ever did.
to reiterate, I don't think the ban lasting this long was the intent of either Giamatti or Rose. I think it was clearly understood by Giamatti and MLB that they were telling Rose to clean his act up so that when he went into the HOF it would not be embarassing. And I think Rose thought he was getting a pro-forma slap on the wrist and would be automatically reinstated at the first possible moment.
The problem is that Rose did nothing to clean his act up, MLB felt betrayed by him, and he felt betrayed by them.
It all comes back to Rose's ego and his gambling addiction not letting him hear what he needed to do.
Tom, what evidence is there for this interpretation? Rose agreed to be permanently ineligible -- which seems like a rather odd step for Rose to take if he thought this was simply a temporary suspension. He also signed a piece of paper that said:
"This document contains the entire agreement of the parties and represents the entire resolution of the matter of Peter Edward Rose before the Commissioner."
Why on earth would Rose sign that, especially on the advice of his attorneys, if everyone involved thought that there was a side agreement?
Ah, we may be talking past each other here. I agree that Pete Rose never agreed to be banned from the HOF. I think that it was extremely unfair of the HOF to ban him after the fact. Rose took a chance that the writers would vote him in, and that thinking led to his decision. He may have been wrong, but that was the chance that he was willing to take.
Rosa knew the rules of riding on the bus. If she thought they were too harsh, she should have gotten off the bus. The driver says "follow the rules or get off the bus." She chose not to.
I'd feel differently in this scenario:
Pete Rose felt that the rules against gambling were too restrictive.
He called a press conference to make his case.
He said, "I'm going to bet on the Reds to win every game from here on out."
MLB kicked him out of baseball.
He goes on TV shows, etc. saying that gambling should be allowed.
In that case, he's protesting an unfair rule. That's not remotely what happened.
Also, I might feel that I should be allowed to murder people. If I murder people and get caught, would you make the Rosa Parks argument there also? I'm just trying to change the unfair system.
Rosa Parks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete Rose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional murder for fun
Most people who are not degenerate gamblers won't bet on something they perceive as "fixed". Professional sports know this, and so while they decry gambling, they are very careful to make sure their games are on the up-and-up. The best way to do this is to heavily penalize league members for any type of gambling infraction. (Which would carry the biggest penalty in baseball: a player cracking another player over the head with a bat (a la Juan Marichal) or a player found to have a friend betting $1000 a game in Vegas for them? I think we know the answer to that one.
I'd make (and have made) bets on MLB games, whereas I wouldn't bet an NBA game or a boxing match unless it were already over. As soon as any taint of game-fixing (on a large scale) where to hit a pro sport, tv revenues and attendance would drop.
I'm still missing the "fairness" argument. Rose has unclean hands. The HOF is an honor, not an entitlement. The HOF is (as I'm sure you agree) allowed to establish its own rules for its voting process.
Where is the unfairness? If lots of participants were betting on games and Rose was singled out, I could perhaps see it. But that wasn't the case at all.
This is, for me, the crux of the matter.
Rose thought that the Hall wouldn't hold the ban against him, and he was wrong. He made a misjudgment, and now he has to pay the penalty.
Where is the unfairness? If lots of participants were betting on games and Rose was singled out, I could perhaps see it. But that wasn't the case at all.
I don't disagree with you, but I guess I need to clarify. I am not debating whether he should be allowed into the HOF. I actually don't know where I stand on that. I agree that it's an honor, but I also think that it's honoring on-the-field achievements. Anyway, that's not where my unfairness comment comes from.
Pete Rose made a deal with MLB to be banned. He made that deal under the assumption that he would still be on the HOF ballot. After the deal was made, the HOF banned him from the ballot. I don't even neccessarily agree that any one party was wrong, but looking at the big picture, Rose got screwed.
He didn't get screwed. He just gambled, and lost. Happens every day.
But there was absolutely no reason for Rose to assume that. It's not like the HOF stated, either privately to Rose or publicly, that no matter how MLB resolved its matter with Rose, Rose would be on the ballot and the HOF had no intention of changing the formal rules.
But I guess the biggest reason the fairness argument is lost on me is because, as I stated, Rose has unclean hands. It's really hard for me to find "fairness" for someone who so flagrantly violated the rules. It's not like Rose was sitting around one night drinking with friends and decided on a whim to place one bet on the Reds. This was a systematic pattern of behavior.
I don't know if you remember the press conferences at the time, but both Giamatti and Rose mentioned that he could (and probably would) petition for reinstatement after a certain period (three years if i remember correctly).
And every discussion of the negotiations has made clear that Rose would only sign off if he could be reinstated.
Looking at the evidence, and the resulting agreement, it is clear that Rose either had awful legal counsel or he knew that the further they dug the deeper his hole was gonna be.
But bottom line, if you plead out you can't complain about the sentence. Sorry.
There have been times when gambling was not taken seriously by baseball. The lead up to the Black Sox was that period. The fact that Hal Chase had a fifteen year big league career is pretty much proof positive that baseball was not taking gambling seriously. John McGraw put a fat wager on the Giants to win the 1905 Series and fixing games was considered a nice way to supplement income. Not legal and subject to a life ban, but the authorities didn't really care. Single game fixes were common in early World Series games.
The Black Sox didn't come out of nowhere, they were the inevitable conclusion of a festering sore in baseball that had slowly grown for 30 years.
Sure, but the right to petition for reinstatement was not a special right granted to Rose; it's standard form for someone who is declared permanently ineligible. The agreement simply confirmed that Rose still had that right:
And this is a small point, but note also the way that clause is phrased. Not as "Peter Edward Rose shall have the right..." but, rather, as "Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the right..."
The right already exists. The agreement simply clarifies that Rose still has it, like anybody else.
(And I think it was one year after which he could apply for reinstatement.)
I'm pretty sure you're right on this. I believe that the standard agreement allows for application for reinstatement on an annual basis. As noted previously, MLB insists that Rose has yet to submit a formal application.
EDIT: Or maybe we were both wrong.
No question, it was nothing special just for Rose. But that is the whole point, Rose thought he was something special and that because of that reinstatement would be a formality.
And, seriously, I think that MLB thought Rose got it, that he understood his chances of reinstatement rested solely on his showing by his words and actions that he realized how serious his crimes were. If Pete Rose gives up gambling, goes to gamblers anonymous meetings, makes every speaking engagement a discussion of the evils of gambling, he walks into the hall and back into baseball (even if he still gambles on the down low). But what did Pete do? He hosted a TV Show about sports betting. Every speaking appearance he argues that gambling is not that big a deal.
And quite honestly the agreement reads like they were making sure they promised Rose nothing. This reinforces my feeling that all he was thinking, and saying in the negotiations, was "How soon before i get reinstated?".
Yes, and I think we can probably both agree that it was incredibly dumb for Rose to sign an agreement that, as you say, promised him precisely nothing and merely confirmed his right to reapply -- if he had a side agreement all along.
That, and how he tends to immediately reinvest the proceeds from any appearance into gambling. There's a reason that Vegas loves to bring him in - they're essentially doing it for free, as he just gives the money back to them.
Actually, Rose nearly played himself out of the HOF on merit.
That, and how he tends to immediately reinvest the proceeds from any appearance into gambling. There's a reason that Vegas loves to bring him in - they're essentially doing it for free, as he just gives the money back to them.
Yep, Rose is no question still a gambling addict. I kind of wonder what would happen if Rose had used his banning from baseball to clean himself up, get treatment, maybe become a spokesman for GA or something like that.
That quote from Giamatti that Ray dug makes clear that rehabilitation was the intent from day one.
I had a friend who tried to convince me that meth was not as harmful as coke or heroin...some people will always feel that their problem is not as bad as the other guy's.
I said "on merit," by which I was trying to get at not what the voters would have done (I fully agree with you there) but whether he almost was no longer worthy of selection given the futility of his last half a decade.
Either at a bar or maybe even at one of those pool halls Andy is always talking about. Would be fun to beat Andy at his own game...
EDIT: just hoping the weather doesn't suck too badly.
Either at a bar or maybe even at one of those pool halls Andy is always talking about. Would be fun to beat Andy at his own game...
The only Baltimore room I've played at lately is a pool-only place in Glen Burnie (Big Daddy's), but there's an Edgar's Billiards Cafe at 1 East Pratt Street # 14. I just found it on google and it had 2 pretty good reviews. From the map it looks like it's between Harborplace and the park and an easy walk to both.
We can play it cheap--- race to 5 and the loser has to vote for whomever the winner names.
Sounds fine to me if you guys are game. Kevin and I are supposed to meet up around 5:30 or so, but I can get in a little earlier.
You had better be as good as you say you are if these are the stakes.
You had better be as good as you say you are if these are the stakes.
Don't worry, robin, I haven't made a ball since The Palace was on Market Street in San Francisco. I take glaucoma drops three times a day just to be able to see across the street, and I lost track of my age about 15 years ago.
Link.
Note that it's "on the skywalk above Pratt and Light streets.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main