Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Calgary Sun: Thorn in Rose’s side

Worn down from all those Bondoid threads?...Then freshen up with some sisal sopping jazz from Pete Rose!

“About three months ago, the guy who shot the Pope got out of jail. He’s getting his second chance. If I was an alcoholic, a drug addict or spouse abuser, I’d get a second chance. I had the wrong vice and that was gambling because of (the) 1919 (Black Sox scandal). This is 2006.

“What drives me crazy about the situation is that about 16 ballparks have casino signs hanging in them. They’re paying these clubs money yet they frown on gambling. If baseball thinks I’m the only guy in the history of baseball who ever bet, they’re p—-ing up a rope.”

Repoz Posted: May 18, 2006 at 10:36 AM | 37 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

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.

   1. Rancischley Leweschquens (Tim Wallach was my Hero) Posted: May 18, 2006 at 12:08 PM (#2025503)
The Canadian government has long been a big-league bookie.


And an NHL bookie, and an NFL bookie, and a NBA bookie... Life is good up here boys.
   2. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: May 18, 2006 at 01:06 PM (#2025511)
About three months ago, the guy who shot the Pope got out of jail.

And immediately went back into jail. A <u>Turkish</u> jail.
   3. Ron Johnson Posted: May 18, 2006 at 01:29 PM (#2025525)
So Pete feels he should be sent to a Turkish jail? Odd request, but I personally have no objection.
   4. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 18, 2006 at 01:49 PM (#2025543)
Can you bet on baseball games at Foxwoods? I don't think MLB has ever cared whether its players fall prey to betting on the ponies or dogs, or blackjack, poker, roulette, dice, etc.
   5. Cris E Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#2025551)
They used to care. Didn't they scold/threaten some famous MY players back in the 60s who were just going to be greeters in Atlantic City? (I want to say Mantle and someone else, but middle age has eaten my brain.)

At any rate the moral relativism that has been allowed to seize control of most institutions these days (including MLB) is way more profitable than any old fashioned fire and brimstone act. That'll always hurt the bottom line. But when you move to a sliding scale it's good to drive a stake in the ground to mark the old boundaries, and Rose has been planted in that spot.
   6. Cris E Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#2025552)
MY = Mew York
   7. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:05 PM (#2025553)
It was Mantle and Mays, and they did more than scold them. They banned them. That's right, Willie and the Mick couldn't be sprint training instructors for a couple of years. OTOH, that was really just Bowie Kuhn being a turd. It's not like he was simultaneously cracking down on all the day trips to the track by players, coaches, managers, etc.
   8. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:10 PM (#2025558)
It was Mantle and Mays in 1983, after they were already out of the game. Kuhn banned them from baseball, but Ueberroth lifted the ban in 85.

Here's a link that will undoubtedly be formatted incorrectly.



here
   9. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:11 PM (#2025559)
What do you know, I was wrong.
   10. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:13 PM (#2025562)
I don't think MLB has ever cared whether its players fall prey to betting on the ponies or dogs, or blackjack, poker, roulette, dice, etc.

Rogers Hornsby was dogged by Landis for track activities. Leo Durocher was suspended just for hanging out with unsavory types.
   11. Cris E Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:15 PM (#2025564)
WTF is with the image in that linked story? My only guess is it's the author, but even then it's a weird choice.
   12. TDF, trained monkey Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:40 PM (#2025585)
Can you bet on baseball games at Foxwoods? I don't think MLB has ever cared whether its players fall prey to betting on the ponies or dogs, or blackjack, poker, roulette, dice, etc.

After a quick search, I can't find it, but I thought the rule was "Gamble, and receive a 1 year suspension; gamble on baseball, and you're out for life".

***

I completely agree about the connection between MLB and casinos - talk about hypocrites. Argosy Casino sponsors pretty much the entire Reds radio broadcast, including the pre- and post-game. From MLB.com, on the Marlins to Vegas move falling apart:
After all, MLB officials have spoken about Las Vegas' potential as a big-league site, and commissioner Bud Selig has even noted that gambling is increasingly commonplace around the country, hinting that baseball might be able to work around the issue of sports betting in Las Vegas. (emphasis mine)
Either gambling is a problem, or it isn't. Make up your minds.

***

Pete, Pete, Pete. You were my baseball hero growing up. I think John Dowd was trying to prove you gambled, not investigate if you did. I think you and Giamatti could have worked something out, and you would have been reinstated. I think Vincent thought he had to keep you out, so your actions wouldn't be glossed over by history (I also think he has a large bag of "holier than thou" he carries around, which influenced his decision).

But I also know (as well as I can without actually watching you do it) you bet on baseball, the only act to get you permanently barred from the game. I also know that all of those people who get second chances show some actual remorse for what they did, which you never have.

It's too late now. You're never getting in the Hall. You're never getting readmitted to baseball. I hate it as much as you do, but it's time to face the truth.
   13. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 18, 2006 at 03:00 PM (#2025600)
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee who bets on a baseball game in which he or she is not directly involved is suspended for one year. Any such person who bet on a game in which he or she is involved "shall be declared permanently ineligible."
   14. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 18, 2006 at 03:03 PM (#2025606)
Posted too soon.

AFAIK, there's no MLB policy that speaks to players, umpires, club or league officials or employees betting on anything other than baseball games. There is a policy that bans ownership interest in casinos, but I don't know all the details of those.
   15. rr Posted: May 18, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2025621)
they should lead by example and terminate their business relations with gambling enterprises.


Naw. They should just talk about it a lot. Changes in economic behavior don't do ####.
   16. BDC Posted: May 18, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#2025654)
I bet on my team to win. Is that a gambling problem?

The general principle in horse racing is that jockeys, trainers, and owners may bet, but only on their own horses, and only to win. Pete Rose doubtless knows this ...
   17. pkb33 Posted: May 18, 2006 at 04:24 PM (#2025664)
He does have a pretty good point about the gambling signs, though. There isn't a NESN telecast that doesn't have several Foxwoods commercials.

No he doesn't, at all.

The problem is that baseball has a crystal-clear rule on players betting on baseball. And when Rose broke that rule, they banned him. This has nothing to do with Foxwoods.

They don't have a rule that says "you can't go to a casino and play slots" If they did, it would be relevant to say that Foxwoods ads are relevant. But that's simply not the case.

These things simply aren't alike, unless you actually interpret baseball's rule to somehow mean "all games of chance are an equal problem for baseball players" which I find to be silly.

Rose is pretty good at misdirection (not Clintonesque brilliant, but pretty good). If you think about the things he's saying though, they just about always fall apart just like this one does.
   18. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: May 18, 2006 at 05:35 PM (#2025815)
This is sort of tangential, but when and how did gambling become acceptable and mainstream? When I was a kid (which wasn't really that long ago), gambling was considered a pretty irresponsible and unsavory activity, but now we're bombarded with ads for gambling and entertainment portraying gambling as a fun, essentially harmless hobby.

Is it because the goverment makes so much money off of gambling nowadays? Is it indicative of larger societal issues?
   19. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 18, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2025863)
I think Pete Rose makes an important point. Mehmet Ali Agca should be kicked out of Cooperstown forthwith.
   20. BDC Posted: May 18, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#2025884)
JR Experience, I think that the big picture is cyclical. Gambling was a major factor in 19th-century America. Governments used lotteries to fund big public-works projects and raise other income before the Civil War. Gambling was suppressed in the general wave of temperance movements that swept the country around the year 1900, but by the 1930s racetracks came back in as Prohibition was going out, and there were lots of semi-overt casinos (my father remembers the boats that would sail out into the middle of Lake Michigan and set up shop outside the jurisdiction, or at least the gunshot, of the Illinois law; there were big casinos on the piers off Galveston Island, which would basically pull up their drawbridges if the sheriff came down the seawall, &c.) Intervals of puritanism and temperance follow and are followed by big investments in gambling institutions ...
   21. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: May 18, 2006 at 06:07 PM (#2025915)
This is sort of tangential, but when and how did gambling become acceptable and mainstream? When I was a kid (which wasn't really that long ago), gambling was considered a pretty irresponsible and unsavory activity, but now we're bombarded with ads for gambling and entertainment portraying gambling as a fun, essentially harmless hobby.

Amen. I don't know how that happened, either, and I've thought about it a lot. Perhaps state-sponsored lotteries brought it into the mainstream. Or perhaps when legalized gambling moved out of Nevada and into Atlantic City, that opened folks' minds to the idea. Or perhaps the idea of gambling-as-sin was just a weird blip in our culture, and folks like you and me got caught in the transition back to normalcy.
   22. base ball chick Posted: May 18, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#2026136)
i think kevin got LOTS of good points!!!

(whoa, miracles happen)

but pete rose can NOT stop betting on anything. some people just like that. and because of that he can NOT be trusted to be in mlb. i don't want him NEAR any players or team people because of the blackmail problem just like what kevin is saying

him saying he deserve a second chance is like
- embezzlers saying they deserve a second chance to handle other peoples money again
- child molesters saying they deserve a second chance to be foster parents/teachers/youth ministers again
- politicians saying they deserve a second chance to be elected again

ooops
nevermind that last one

but the hall is a private thing got nothing to do with what mlb wants and they can let people in or out for any reason they want. they got a wing for females and us grrrls haven't never played mlb and we been banned from playing in MLB for, what, 50 years and i think helll will freeze over before any female is allowed to play mlb no matter how good she is
   23. Captain Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew Posted: May 18, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#2026342)
i think helll will freeze over before any female is allowed to play mlb no matter how good she is

Please.
   24. pkb33 Posted: May 18, 2006 at 07:47 PM (#2026352)
So, like, if Rose got in financial trouble with his gambling and the crooks he owed money to told him to alter some games or have his legs broken, then the non-baseball gambling has nothing to do with him agreeing to do that.

Gotcha.


If you think that Foxwoods sends thugs out to do this then you are quite ill-informed. And the only point of the comment otherwise is to show how different betting on baseball with private gamblers (and their thug enforcers) is from going to a casino---so you aren't helping yourself here.

Or don't you believe in gambling addiction, that the addict doesn't have an trouble distinguishing these different types of gambling? Or that Rose is an isolated case, that gambling addiction would never occur in any other player, and there's no real risk that it would spill over into betting on baseball?

I said nothing of the sort, nor could you possibly get that from my comments. To refocus you, the issue is that baseball has a clear and specific rule about betting on baseball games and not one on betting in casinos. Whether someone has a gambling addiction or not has, literally, no relevance at all to this distinction or to the points being made here.

There's simply no realistic argument that Rose's gambling is excused by casino ads during baseball telecasts---or if there is, it hasn't been made here and I can't imagine what it is.
   25. pkb33 Posted: May 18, 2006 at 07:59 PM (#2026407)
Also, if what you were trying to say is that since a gambling addict might start in a casino then drift into betting on baseball and then into fixing games, I'd suggest that this is rather a foolish slippery slope argument.

There's a number of activities that are legal and which, if one is addicted, can lead to problems including self-destructive behavior. The argument above is no more relevant to gambling than it is to alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, and sex. If you want to argue baseball should ban all of them, too, because they might lead to problems that's fine, but otherwise it's simply not a valid point. You have to assume a series of unrelated escalations plus criminal activity in order to get where you are trying to go---thus, it's simply too far a leap in logic to take seriously to me.
   26. pkb33 Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#2026426)
Well, I'm not saying that so I don't see where we disagree there.

I suggest you re-read your earlier post; suggesting that Rose has a valid point about casino ads seems to do just that.

If MLB doesn't want the game tainted by gambling, then it has to distance itself from enterprises that might draw the players into it's vortex.

Do you actually not see the difference between "players and managers cannot bet on baseball" and "Come to Foxwoods" Really? That's hard to believe, frankly. As I noted above, you are vastly oversimplying and probably misunderstanding what baseball's obejective is here.
   27. pkb33 Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#2026435)
Art Schlichter

Again, you are proving the opposite of what you intend. Schlicter's problem was that he owed bookies $150,000. This only emphasizes the difference between betting legally at casinos and betting illegally with bookies on sports.

Not to mention that the relevant issue is still baseball's actual rules.
   28. strong silence Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#2026480)
bet that fly lands on my fork before yours.

bet you can't stand right here on this newspaper with me and push me off it.

what is Jack Abramoff doing right now?
   29. vortex of dissipation Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#2026488)
but the hall is a private thing got nothing to do with what mlb wants and they can let people in or out for any reason they want. they got a wing for females and us grrrls haven't never played mlb and we been banned from playing in MLB for, what, 50 years and i think helll will freeze over before any female is allowed to play mlb no matter how good she is

No, not a wing; it's an exhibit on Women in Baseball, focusing on the All-American Girls Baseball League. It's also important to distinguish between the Baseball Hall-of-Fame and the Museum: just because there is an exhibit in the Museum, doesn't mean that the people featured in the exhibit are in the Hall-of-Fame.

I think that if a woman came along who was good enough to play in MLB, she would not only be accepted, but very heavily promoted. Look at how race car drivers Danica Patrick and Katherine Legge have been promoted (and there's nothing wrong with that - both have lots of talent and are capable of competing with anyone).
   30. pkb33 Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:27 PM (#2026498)
Well, the point I am making is that MLB is being hypocritical if it, on the one hand, derives money from gambling but on the other applies a death sentence to any player who might step over the line and bet on baseball.

And, for the second time, that's only hypocritical if you think all gambling is the same. Because otherwise, it's quite easy to see that baseball has a firm rule that players and managers can't bet on baseball (review the 1919 season if you don't understand the rationale for this) but that this rule doesn't extend to all games of chance in all contexts.

If baseball had a rule that said "players can't gamble at all, in any way" and ran casino ads then it would be rational to suggest Rose was the victim of hypocrisy. But that simply isn't the case----he broke a rule and in no way does baseball suggest that teams and players should be betting on games.

And what do you think will happen when gambling-addicted players are on the road and they don't have access to the casinos? Play powerball?

I think baseball is 100% clear that if these players bet on baseball they'll be banned. Whether you like that rule or not, it's clear and obviously distinguishes what types of gambling are not acceptable. Suggesting that some players might be problem gamblers does nothing at all to change that, either.
   31. Ron Johnson Posted: May 18, 2006 at 10:46 PM (#2026647)
it's quite easy to see that baseball has a firm rule that players and managers can't bet on baseball (review the 1919 season if you don't understand the rationale for this)


And as I've noted many times before baseball's no gambling rules goes back to the 1850s. (And you couldn't bet on your own team either)

Baseball's policy need not be as draconian as it is. It could survive with lesser penalties.

However:

Organized baseball has nothing to gain by allowing it players and managers to gamble (at one point the official scorer wasn't allowed to bet on the game and frankly that seems weird to me)

The policy they have in place is dead easy to understand

The policy they have in place simplifies investigation. TOugh enough to prove a player's betting on a game, never mind which way he's betting.
   32. Buzzards Bay Posted: May 19, 2006 at 01:04 AM (#2026785)
the edict is straightforward/direct/exact
   33. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2006 at 01:50 AM (#2026873)
This is sort of tangential, but when and how did gambling become acceptable and mainstream? When I was a kid (which wasn't really that long ago), gambling was considered a pretty irresponsible and unsavory activity, but now we're bombarded with ads for gambling and entertainment portraying gambling as a fun, essentially harmless hobby.

Kevin really answered this pretty well, but I would add my two cents to say that one of the best arguments for neo-Nieporentism I can think of is the sorry experience we've had with government sponsored gambling. Just think of a few of the consequences:

Old style bookies and policymen:

the number runner paid back 60% cash, tax-free, of what he took in.

Bookies also paid you cash, tax-free.

The mob's take aside in many cases, the money mostly stayed in the neighborhood.

People who had an inclination to gamble could easily do so, but there were no scientifically designed advertising campaigns to lure fresh suckers into the pool. The absolute nadir of this trend came when the DC Lottery ran its infamous ad on Martin Luther King's Birthday which read, "HE, TOO, HAD A DREAM---D.C. LOTTERY."

Contrast this essentially local, decentralized, unregulated, purely voluntary (if somewhat seedy, but so what?) human activity with the hyper-hyped, bureaucratized, overtaxed, scandal-laden, corrupt state of most state-run gambling schemes we have today, with governors clamoring for slot machines in race tracks in order to compete with the slot machines in the next state's race tracks, and with entire towns and regions of the country more or less dependent on gambling for what they call survival.

It's almost enough to convert me to libertarianism, or at least to make me want a one issue guest pass. I say get the government the hell out of promoting gambling and let it find its own natural level of activity on the basis of individual decision.
   34. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2006 at 01:54 AM (#2026881)
Oh, and one last thing I should have added: Absolutely no advertising for gambling allowed. Keep it strictly word of mouth, and the more local the better. Let gambling joints sink or swim by their reputations alone, and let the chips fall where they may.
   35. Walt Davis Posted: May 19, 2006 at 08:54 AM (#2027037)
Absolutely no advertising for gambling allowed.

Your flirtation with libertarianism was short-lived. :-)
   36. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2027237)
Your flirtation with libertarianism was short-lived. :-)

By one of those funny little coincidences which will warm the cold cockles of Nieporent's heart, I just a minute ago got a phone call from Reason magazine with an order for six of my immigration posters, which they plan on using in a big piece on immigration in one of their upcoming issues.

(Hey, we didn't talk about tobacco advertising or single payer health care plans.....)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogReport: Yankees' Cole, Gardner had altercation after clubhouse prank
(21 - 6:38pm, Oct 25)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogNBA 2021-2022 Season Thread
(334 - 6:25pm, Oct 25)
Last: aberg

NewsblogOpinion: Atlanta Braves make unfortunate anti-vaccine statement with Travis Tritt as NLCS national anthem singer
(69 - 6:17pm, Oct 25)
Last: Hombre Brotani

NewsblogMLB Just Tried a Bunch of Experimental Rules in the Minors. How Well Did They Work?
(58 - 6:16pm, Oct 25)
Last: .

NewsblogMajor League Baseball work stoppage almost certain on Dec. 2
(1 - 6:01pm, Oct 25)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogSt. Louis Cardinals to hire bench coach Oliver Marmol, 35, as next manager, sources say
(7 - 5:41pm, Oct 25)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

NewsblogWas This Red Sox Season a Sign of Things to Come, or Just a Surprising One-off?
(20 - 5:22pm, Oct 25)
Last: Walt Davis

Sox TherapyMeet the 2022 Red Sox
(2 - 4:53pm, Oct 25)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogCarlton Fisk kept it fair, but Keith Olbermann’s attempt to sell historic ball is foul
(49 - 4:48pm, Oct 25)
Last: Tony S

NewsblogPerth Heat ‘heartbroken’ as Australian Baseball League cancels upcoming season
(6 - 4:26pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogMets should be all-in on Brian Sabean, winning Giants executive, to run front office
(26 - 2:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogAtlanta Braves back in World Series for first time since 1999 after upsetting Dodgers in NLCS
(23 - 2:55pm, Oct 25)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogDodgers Albert Pujols Hits the COVID-19 Injured List
(235 - 2:39pm, Oct 25)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

Sox TherapyWhat a Ride
(18 - 1:57pm, Oct 25)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(477 - 1:49pm, Oct 25)
Last: Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging

Page rendered in 0.2743 seconds
48 querie(s) executed