snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Sports (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Rose admits to betting on Reds every night (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=5166)

snopes 15 March 2007 03:05 AM

Rose admits to betting on Reds every night
 
Pete Rose has revealed that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

Ali Infree 15 March 2007 09:21 PM

Pete Rose should never, ever, ever be admitted to the Hall of Fame. The Hall isn't big enough for the jerk.

OTOH, Shoeless Joe Jackson should be in Cooperstown.

Ali "Wake me up for opening day" Infree

BringTheNoise 15 March 2007 09:28 PM

He bet on his team to win? Where's the problem then? If he was betting against them, and then using his managerial position to throw the game, I could see a problem, but not here.

Canuckistan 16 March 2007 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali Infree (Post 99079)
Pete Rose should never, ever, ever be admitted to the Hall of Fame.

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think gambling on your team is necessarily the worst crime someone could commit.

His accomplishments should be recognized by the hall -- although I would have no objection with having the gambling prominently featured as well.

snopes 16 March 2007 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise (Post 99088)
He bet on his team to win? Where's the problem then? If he was betting against them, and then using his managerial position to throw the game, I could see a problem, but not here.

Because:

a) A manager can still use his position to make moves that enhance the chances his team will win the games he bets on (or the games he bets more money on) at the expense of the team's long-term record.

b) Rose didn't say that he didn't also bet on other teams as well.

- snopes

Algae 16 March 2007 02:11 AM

I heard an interview with Dowd today (The Mitch Albom Show on WJR in Detroit, although Steve Courtney was hosting today) where the reporter said that isn't true - Rose didn't bet on games where 2 certain pitchers were starting or that he would only bet a nominal amount and on other games, bet large amounts, so it was easy to tell that he wasn't really betting on the team.

snopes 16 March 2007 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algae (Post 99325)
I heard an interview with Dowd where the reporter said that isn't true - Rose didn't bet on games where 2 certain pitchers were starting

That was covered in the article linked in the OP:

Quote:

Dowd told the program that Rose did not bet at all in the 1987 season when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched. He also said that Rose bet while he was playing.
- snopes

Algae 16 March 2007 02:56 AM

Hmm, how'd I miss seeing that? Um, so yeah, what he said. :o

RealityChuck 16 March 2007 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 97897)
Pete Rose has revealed that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

Keith Olbermann (who was there) pointed out that the comment was a defense, not an admission and that the entire story was misreported.

Betting is unjustifiable, but if Rose was betting on his own team every night, then it does eliminate the main problem with betting on your own team, which is how the team is affected when you don't bet.

If you bet on the games regularly, then one day stop betting on your team, the bookmakers will take this as inside information. And they may be right: if your money is not on the line, you may decide to rest your best players for games when it is.

But if you bet every game, it's much less likely to affect strategy, since you're working to win every game.

Not that Rose is justified, of course.

snopes 16 March 2007 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealityChuck (Post 99783)
But if you bet every game, it's much less likely to affect strategy, since you're working to win every game.

Only if you're betting the same amount on every single game. Otherwise, you still have an incentive to do more to try to win the games on which you bet larger amounts of money.

- snopes

Ali Infree 16 March 2007 06:00 PM

Actually, for me, Rose's jerkdom goes back to his playing days when he made a hard play at home plate and ended the career of the American League catcher standing in his way in the All-Star game. He was an arrogant player who took care of himself first and the current round of news on his betting reinforces that.

It is just coincidence, but think about this, the man whose career record for hits that Pete Rose beat Ty Cobb, was somewhat similar--fiery, win-at-all-costs, and Cobb also had his own betting scandal. Compare with the record for consecutive games played: Cal Ripken and Lou Gehrig--steady players with great skills. Of course, the analogy goes to pot if you look elsewhere, so coincidence it is.

Rose really wants to play by his own rules. His records are history and are recorded at Cooperstown and in the record books. Like Ty Cobb, that fact doesn't mean that I should like the man.

Ali "it's a hit and run world" Infree

Lainie 16 March 2007 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise (Post 99088)
He bet on his team to win? Where's the problem then? If he was betting against them, and then using his managerial position to throw the game, I could see a problem, but not here.

Aside from the excellent points snopes made, it was against the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuckistan (Post 99283)
I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think gambling on your team is necessarily the worst crime someone could commit.

Oh, Canuckie, hell must be freezing over. I'm going to disagree with you again. It makes mesad.

Betting on your team is obviously not the worst crime someone could commit. However, it is a violation of MLB rules, for which the punishment is expulsion from baseball. So unless you also support letting Shoeless Joe in the hall, you'll have to explain to me why an exception should be made for Pete Rose.

On an unrelated note, he is a world-class asshole, and I bet Joe and the guys won't let him play on the field of dreams. :)

Canuckistan 16 March 2007 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 100065)
Oh, Canuckie, hell must be freezing over. I'm going to disagree with you again. It makes mesad.

It makes me angry. You shall pay for such a betrayal! :mad:

:p

Quote:

Betting on your team is obviously not the worst crime someone could commit. However, it is a violation of MLB rules, for which the punishment is expulsion from baseball. So unless you also support letting Shoeless Joe in the hall, you'll have to explain to me why an exception should be made for Pete Rose.
I don't think Shoeless Joe is in the same league (no pun intended). He was accused of intentionally throwing games. There's no indication that Rose did. In fact, betting on his team would be a motivation to get them to work harder, no? Rose didn't admit to betting on other teams, just his.

ETA: Truth be told, I'm rather indifferent as to whether he's reinstated, seeing as it will have minimal effect on my life. If they do reinstate, cool. If they don't, same thing for me.

snopes 16 March 2007 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuckistan (Post 100173)
In fact, betting on his team would be a motivation to get them to work harder, no? Rose didn't admit to betting on other teams, just his.

But:

a) He didn't bet on his team consistently, which meant he had motivation to attempt to win some games at the expense of others.

b) Maybe he hasn't admitted it, but he did in fact bet on other teams as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/sp...l/16chass.html

Quote:

Contrary to what he said in the Wednesday radio interview, Rose did not bet on Reds games nightly. The record Dowd created demonstrated that there were [Reds] games on which Rose did not bet. It was those games that represented the response to his supporters who said it was no big deal if Rose bet on games as long as he didn’t bet on the Reds to lose.

According to the Dowd report, which included a diary of bets that Rose made on Reds games and many others — it listed bets on 390 games over all, 52 of them involving the Reds, in a three-month period in 1987 — Rose developed a consistency of not betting on certain contests.
- snopes

Canuckistan 16 March 2007 07:28 PM

That does change things, then. Betting on just his team to win is one thing (an attitude, if not actions, that is almost expected from a coach), but this is very different.

I'll shut up now.

DadOf3 16 March 2007 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuckistan (Post 100173)
I don't think Shoeless Joe is in the same league (no pun intended). He was accused of intentionally throwing games.

Shoeless Joe was the superstar of his day. Babe Ruth said Shoeless Joe taught him how to hit. Even in the series he was supposed to have thrown, he batted .375 and had no errors. His lifetime batting average was .356.

He was acquitted by a jury of throwing the games, but he's still banned from baseball, and from the Hall of Fame.

I always felt he was done an injustice by baseball, but I don't think I feel the same about Pete Rose, at least not to the same extent. I've always been of the opinion that someone who does something impressive should be honoured for it, irrespective of whatever else they may have done.

Then again, that same logic would also keep Alan Eagleson in the Hockey Hall of Fame, so I'd have many detractors there.

Lainie 16 March 2007 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuckistan (Post 100173)
I don't think Shoeless Joe is in the same league (no pun intended). He was accused of intentionally throwing games.

Accused but acquitted.

Quote:

betting on his team would be a motivation to get them to work harder, no? Rose didn't admit to betting on other teams, just his.
What snopes said. Besides, the rule against betting on baseball doesn't distinguish between betting on other teams and betting on one's own team.

snopes 16 March 2007 11:42 PM

Quote:

He was acquitted by a jury of throwing the games.
No, he was not. Jackson and the others were acquitted of conspiring to defraud the public and to injure the business of Charles Comiskey -- not because a jury determined they had not deliberately thrown games, but because of the technicality that the players "believed any arrangement they may have made was a secret one and would, therefore, reflect no discredit on the national pastime or injure the business of their employer as it would never be detected."

Quote:

Accused but acquitted.
Not so. None of the Black Sox was charged with, or put on trial for, throwing games, because it wasn't a crime.

- snopes

Lainie 16 March 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 100438)
Not really. None of the Black Sox was charged with, or put on trial for, throwing games, because it wasn't a crime.

- snopes

Thank you for clarifying.

snopes 17 March 2007 12:14 AM

Quote:

Even in the series he was supposed to have thrown, he batted .375 and had no errors. He was acquitted by a jury of throwing the games, but he's still banned from baseball, and from the Hall of Fame.
Jackson admitted that he accepted money for throwing the Series but claimed that he played to the best of his ability anyway. Even if you take him at his word, the best you can say about him is that he accepted dirty money but opted to screw his co-conspirators rather than screwing Comiskey and the fans. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

- snopes


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.