snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Sports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 17 March 2007, 01:14 AM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon401

If there's anything this thread has taught me, it's that I shouldn't match wits with snopes when it comes to baseball. I'm clearly unarmed.

Thanks for the info, everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 17 March 2007, 03:42 AM
cdav1313 cdav1313 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 10 February 2007
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 397
Default

Betting on your own team does have alot of variables. If he placed bets using any kind of point-spread, he would, as manager, need to run up the score in some cases.

This could mean, taking a game that is all but in the bag, and leaving the starting pitcher in too long, risking injury. Ordering superstar hitters to go for a big hit (imagine late innings with a 6 run lead), when its not needed, instead of laying off and taking a walk, risking injury. Starting players who need rest, risking injury. (I know players can get injured at any time, I'm trying to say needlessly risking injury,).

Plus he broke the rules. A lifetime ban, to me, seems harsh, but there has to be penalty for breaking the rules otherwise, why have rules. If I were commish for a day, I would put Rose in the Hall. Put right on his plaque, under his HOF stats, that he was a snake who violated rules. Keep the lifetime ban, but put him in the Hall with a big asterisk.

With all that said, Barry Bonds is STILL FREAKIN' PLAYING!!!! This guy is CHEATING and is allowed to continue on. There may be no 'Solid Proof' that he's cheating, but he's cheating. Everybody knows he's cheating. Everybody. We know it. He knows it. He knows we know it. And he's going to break one of baseball's most cherished records. By cheating. At least Rose never 'cheated' per se.

If Barry is not cheating, then I believe OJ will find the 'real killer'.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17 March 2007, 04:45 PM
cdav1313 cdav1313 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 10 February 2007
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 397
Default

Pete Rose banned from the Hall of Fame, yet Red Sox allowed to be used to promote gambling:

Mass. Lottery and Red Sox Partner in New $10 Game


I won $1,000 on one of these tickets last season, so I am not against them, I just think it's ... ironic? (is that the word I'm looking for?)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27 March 2007, 07:24 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,624
Icon605

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
I won $1,000 on one of these tickets last season, so I am not against them, I just think it's ... ironic? (is that the word I'm looking for?)
I don't know why it should be considered "ironic" (or "hypocritical," or something similar). Major leaguers aren't barred from gambling; they're just prohibited from betting on baseball. If they want go to the racetrack or patronize a casino or buy lottery tickets, they're perfectly free to do so without penalty.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 27 March 2007, 10:25 PM
cdav1313 cdav1313 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 10 February 2007
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Major leaguers aren't barred from gambling; they're just prohibited from betting on baseball.

- snopes
I understand. I was just trying to point out how MLB is picking and choosing what kind of gambling is ok. Rose was banned before they found out he bet on his own team. The Red Sox can endorse scratch ticket gambling because there's a buck to be made. That's all I was trying to point out.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 28 March 2007, 08:52 PM
epdenny200's Avatar
epdenny200 epdenny200 is offline
 
Join Date: 09 January 2007
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 287
Default

[HIJACK]Some of you seem to be baseball fans. Do any of you an interest in fantasy baseball? If so check out this thread. DAnnino has setup a fantasy league on the ESPN site and we need 10 more teams. It's only for snopesters. [/HIJACK]

BTW I think Pete belongs in the Hall of Fame. But then I grew up in the 70's about 60 miles north of Cincinnati.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 28 March 2007, 09:17 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is online now
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
I understand. I was just trying to point out how MLB is picking and choosing what kind of gambling is ok.
They are also consistently enforcing their own rules. There is a good reason why MLB bans betting on baseball. What would be the good reason for banning players or teams from promoting, or playing, the lottery? What would be a good reason for banning MLB players from betting on horses?

Quote:
Rose was banned before they found out he bet on his own team.
Again, the rule is against betting on MLB, not just against betting on one's own team. They are a private organization with the right to make and enforce their own rules. Rose broke the rule and was penalized accordingly.

ETA:

Epdenny200 said:

Quote:
BTW I think Pete belongs in the Hall of Fame. But then I grew up in the 70's about 60 miles north of Cincinnati.
I think it's just remotely possible that there are people who grew up in the same time and place but don't agree with you.

I grew up in Ohio, although not near Cincinnati, in the 1960s and 1970s. My three brothers uniformly despise Pete Rose, and my father did, too.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 28 March 2007, 09:39 PM
cdav1313 cdav1313 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 10 February 2007
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 397
Default

Your blowing it out of proportion and still kind of missing my point. I'm not arguing for or against baseball's gambling rules nor was I try to make any earth shattering points or accusations.

Alot of people outside of New England don't know about the Red Sox scratch tickets since they are part of the Massachusetts lottery. The story about Rose's gambling and the story about the unveiling of the Red Sox scratch ticket were on the same page of the newspaper I read. I was just pointing it all out. I'm not going to argue MLB's rules of gambling. I think thier rules are fine. I was just adding something to the discussion that some people might not have known. I wasn't ever even talking about players gambling on horses or playing the lottery. I wasn't talking about players period. I mentioned that a team is endorsing a lottery ticket. Some of the "wholesome" types, who want Rose banned, might not like letting a Major League sports franchise endorse gambling (those are usually the same people who didn't like Prince's halftime show. They think the Red Sox would influence kids into gambling. I don't necessarily agree, I was just making conversation)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 28 March 2007, 11:20 PM
epdenny200's Avatar
epdenny200 epdenny200 is offline
 
Join Date: 09 January 2007
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post

I think it's just remotely possible that there are people who grew up in the same time and place but don't agree with you.

I grew up in Ohio, although not near Cincinnati, in the 1960s and 1970s. My three brothers uniformly despise Pete Rose, and my father did, too.
I'm sure it's more than a remote possibility. There must be a fairly large percentage of people there that disagree with me. I was just trying to point out that I realize that I may be more than a little bit biased.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 29 March 2007, 01:29 AM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is online now
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
Your blowing it out of proportion and still kind of missing my point.
I didn't miss your point. I just don't think it's valid. And how am I blowing anything out of proportion?

Quote:
I'm not arguing for or against baseball's gambling rules nor was I try to make any earth shattering points or accusations.
I never suggested you did either. But you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
I understand. I was just trying to point out how MLB is picking and choosing what kind of gambling is ok.
and I pointed out what was wrong with that statement. That's making conversation, too.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 29 March 2007, 01:56 AM
Mr. Furious's Avatar
Mr. Furious Mr. Furious is offline
 
Join Date: 13 January 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 12,141
Flame

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
Plus he broke the rules. A lifetime ban, to me, seems harsh, but there has to be penalty for breaking the rules otherwise, why have rules. If I were commish for a day, I would put Rose in the Hall. Put right on his plaque, under his HOF stats, that he was a snake who violated rules. Keep the lifetime ban, but put him in the Hall with a big asterisk.
The Hall of Fame sees it differently, and I agree with their stance - no player ruled permanently ineligible can appear on the HoF ballot.

And Rose knew the consequences of betting on baseball, just like every single player and manager does. That's the primary reason I have no sympathy for him. He was so arrogant that he figured he wouldn't get caught, and even if he did, his status as baseball's all-time hits leader would allow him to get into the HoF anyway.

Quote:
With all that said, Barry Bonds is STILL FREAKIN' PLAYING!!!! This guy is CHEATING and is allowed to continue on. There may be no 'Solid Proof' that he's cheating, but he's cheating. Everybody knows he's cheating. Everybody. We know it. He knows it. He knows we know it. And he's going to break one of baseball's most cherished records. By cheating. At least Rose never 'cheated' per se.
Jesus, I'm about to sort-of defend Barry Bonds. Please, kill me now.

Bonds has never, aside from a single recent positive test for amphetamines, been caught using PEDs since they were banned by baseball. It's pretty clear that he's used PEDs heavily since 1998, and that use has led him to challenge some of baseball's most hallowed records. Still, when he did so, it wasn't against MLB's rules. That's the salient point.

The penalties for using steroids have been defined, just like the penalty for gambling on baseball has. The penalty for steroid use - even chronic use - isn't a lifetime ban. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, but it isn't. I'd love to see Bonds' numbers (along with McGwire's and Sosa's) erased from the record books, but that just isn't going to happen.

To sum up:
  • Rose broke an established rule, and knew that the consequences were a lifetime ban and de-facto ineligibility for the Hall of Fame
  • He lied and lied and lied until he realized that he wasn't going to get reinstated because of public sympathy
  • Bonds did something illegal, but not contrary to MLB rules
  • Bonds is a giant dickbag who's every bit as racist as Ty Cobb (I just threw that in because I can't stand him)
The Reds are my favorite NL team. I admired Rose as both a player and a manager. He betrayed that trust. I hope he never gets into the Hall of Fame, at least not in my lifetime. I'm 31 years younger than him, so that would likely mean that he wouldn't live to see his induction either; I'm good with that.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 29 March 2007, 02:25 AM
cdav1313 cdav1313 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 10 February 2007
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
I didn't miss your point.
You most certainly did. I posted the link and the story just to have it out there. So people know. Then everyone gets defensive and starts telling me baseball players can go to horse tracks and casinos.

Quote:
Major leaguers aren't barred from gambling; they're just prohibited from betting on baseball. If they want go to the racetrack or patronize a casino or buy lottery tickets, they're perfectly free to do so without penalty.
Quote:
There is a good reason why MLB bans betting on baseball. What would be the good reason for banning players or teams from promoting, or playing, the lottery? What would be a good reason for banning MLB players from betting on horses?
So now I feel compelled to somehow backup my statement and point out that I never said anything about player gambling.

Quote:
I understand. I was just trying to point out how MLB is picking and choosing what kind of gambling is ok.
Quote:
and I pointed out what was wrong with that statement. That's making conversation, too.
There's really technically nothing wrong with that statement. MLB is saying players gambling on games is bad, but otherwise gambling is good, so here, buy our scratch tickets.

I seen that my first post on the subject was being distorted into somekind of "players shouldn't gamble" argument. I wasn't trying to "say" anything really. (hence you are blowing it out of proportion). I feel as though you are trying to force me into an argument where you know I'll eventually trip on my words, or back myself into a corner. I am overly trying to explain a nonpoint and therefore will end up saying something contradictory. If it makes you feel better, I will cede the "debate" to you and admit players can gamble, not on baseball, Pete is and should be banned and the Red Sox are doing nothing wrong. All things I understood and agreed with before ever posting.

Banning Rose is a big deal. Its been in the news for years now. Its been debated heavily for years now. Gambling has been a sore subject in the sports community going as far back as the fixed 1919 world series and even earlier than that. Scratch tickets is a form of gambling. I thought MLB endorsing scratch tickets was an interesting sidebar to the "Pete Rose gambling is bad" issue. I guess I was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 29 March 2007, 02:31 AM
Mr. Furious's Avatar
Mr. Furious Mr. Furious is offline
 
Join Date: 13 January 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 12,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
I thought MLB endorsing scratch tickets was an interesting sidebar to the "Pete Rose gambling is bad" issue. I guess I was wrong.
If the issue was something other than "Pete Rose betting not only on baseball but his own team is bad," you might have a point.

MLB discourages players from gambling, in general. If a player bets on, say, the NBA, I doubt that Selig would be happy, but the player wouldn't be banned for life - because it isn't in the rulebook, like betting on baseball is, and has been since well before Pete Rose started playing baseball.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 29 March 2007, 02:45 AM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is online now
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
You most certainly did. I posted the link and the story just to have it out there. So people know.
Well, if you had no point, then there was nothing for me to miss, was there?

Quote:
Then everyone gets defensive and starts telling me baseball players can go to horse tracks and casinos.
You made a statement, and some other posters pointed out the problems with your statement. That happens here. Nobody's being defensive, because nobody here has anything to defend.

Quote:
So now I feel compelled to somehow backup my statement and point out that I never said anything about player gambling.
If you never said anything about it, what are you backing up?

Quote:
There's really technically nothing wrong with that statement. MLB is saying players gambling on games is bad, but otherwise gambling is good, so here, buy our scratch tickets.
The problem with the statement is that MLB didn't ban Rose because "gambling is bad". They banned him because gambling on baseball is against the rules of the MLB.

Quote:
I feel as though you are trying to force me into an argument where you know I'll eventually trip on my words, or back myself into a corner.
I'm doing nothing of the kind. I am holding you responsible for the content of what you post.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 29 March 2007, 03:00 AM
cdav1313 cdav1313 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 10 February 2007
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
You made a statement, and some other posters pointed out the problems with your statement. That happens here. Nobody's being defensive, because nobody here has anything to defend.
You keep saying my statement was wrong, but I never ever ever ever said players shouldn't be allowed to go to the horsetrack or casino, yet it was brought up repeatedly. You are twisting what I say around.


Quote:
If you never said anything about it, what are you backing up?
I am backing up the fact that my statement never mentioned players gambling on things other than baseball. Again, you are intentionally twisting around what I am saying.

Quote:
The problem with the statement is that MLB didn't ban Rose because "gambling is bad". They banned him because gambling on baseball is against the rules of the MLB.
Well to me "against the rules" = "bad". I suspect you are Again, you are intentionally twisting around what I am saying because I didn't say "gambling is bad", my exact quote was "MLB is saying players gambling on games is bad". In my world bad=against the rules.

Quote:
I'm doing nothing of the kind. I am holding you responsible for the content of what you post.
I disagree. I feel as though you are you are intentionally twisting around what I am saying in order to make me look foolish.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 29 March 2007, 03:07 AM
cdav1313 cdav1313 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 10 February 2007
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 397
Default

Mr Furious, about Bonds, I know and agree with everything you said.

Regardless of the rules and MLB's penalties regarding 'roid use and even forgetting the fact that he was never caught juicing up, it just drives me absolutely bonkers that he's getting away with it. Bold-faced, cheating without remorse. He's gonna break the hallowed record while giving the fans, the sport, and its history, the finger.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01 April 2007, 05:26 AM
bjohn13
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
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.
Two words. "Point spread".
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 18 April 2007, 02:47 AM
keokuk's Avatar
keokuk keokuk is offline
 
Join Date: 25 July 2006
Location: Montclair, NJ
Posts: 4,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjohn13 View Post
Two words. "Point spread".
Baseball doesn't really use a point spread. But rather, they shift the odds around. To pull a random example from one of tomorrow's games:

Philadelphia (A. Eaton) @ Washington (J. Bergmann)
The odds for that game are -140 for Philadelphia and +120 for Washington. This means that if you wager $140 on PHI, you would win $100 if they win. If you wager $100 on WAS, you would win $120 if they win.

In other sports, like football and basketball, you get a point spread and pretty much even (-110) odds. In baseball and soccer, since scores are so low, you have to bet on a team to win outright, they don't really do spreads.

(Note: Some sportsbooks will do spreads for baseball, but they are more fringe bets like betting on whether suchandsuch player will hit a home run or not. The conventional way to bet on baseball is just with shifting odds by matchup.)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 23 April 2007, 11:51 PM
Deepfrydegg
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Furious View Post
The Hall of Fame sees it differently, and I agree with their stance - no player ruled permanently ineligible can appear on the HoF ballot.

And Rose knew the consequences of betting on baseball, just like every single player and manager does. That's the primary reason I have no sympathy for him. He was so arrogant that he figured he wouldn't get caught, and even if he did, his status as baseball's all-time hits leader would allow him to get into the HoF anyway.

Jesus, I'm about to sort-of defend Barry Bonds. Please, kill me now.

Bonds has never, aside from a single recent positive test for amphetamines, been caught using PEDs since they were banned by baseball. It's pretty clear that he's used PEDs heavily since 1998, and that use has led him to challenge some of baseball's most hallowed records. Still, when he did so, it wasn't against MLB's rules. That's the salient point.

The penalties for using steroids have been defined, just like the penalty for gambling on baseball has. The penalty for steroid use - even chronic use - isn't a lifetime ban. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, but it isn't. I'd love to see Bonds' numbers (along with McGwire's and Sosa's) erased from the record books, but that just isn't going to happen.

To sum up:
  • Rose broke an established rule, and knew that the consequences were a lifetime ban and de-facto ineligibility for the Hall of Fame
  • He lied and lied and lied until he realized that he wasn't going to get reinstated because of public sympathy
  • Bonds did something illegal, but not contrary to MLB rules
  • Bonds is a giant dickbag who's every bit as racist as Ty Cobb (I just threw that in because I can't stand him)
The Reds are my favorite NL team. I admired Rose as both a player and a manager. He betrayed that trust. I hope he never gets into the Hall of Fame, at least not in my lifetime. I'm 31 years younger than him, so that would likely mean that he wouldn't live to see his induction either; I'm good with that.
I understand where you are coming from. I don't like Bonds (even though I call myself a Giants' fan).
He did NOT cheat. What he is accused of doing was NOT at that time against the rules of baseball. Criminal or not is a matter for police. Considering the number of MLB players with narcotic/weapons/spousal violence arrests I doubt he would ever see much of the courtroom.

Pete Rose had detailed inside information about Baseball. His betting would definitely skew the way bookmakers arrayed the games. If Pete bet on some games, but not others, bookies would have a good idea how that contest was going to turn out. Omitting a wager is just as telling as placing one.

Barry and Pete and Ty and countless others are all jerks. They still played a hell of a game, and I will grant them some admiration for that ability.

I have to go scrub myself with sand for defending Barry Bonds...ugh!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 24 April 2007, 04:27 PM
2334Paydan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdav1313 View Post
Mr Furious, about Bonds, I know and agree with everything you said.

Regardless of the rules and MLB's penalties regarding 'roid use and even forgetting the fact that he was never caught juicing up, it just drives me absolutely bonkers that he's getting away with it. Bold-faced, cheating without remorse. He's gonna break the hallowed record while giving the fans, the sport, and its history, the finger.
Oh spare me the crap about it being a hallowed record.

Aaron played his entire career when uppers were pushed on and used by every mlb player nearly everyday, and they were a performance enhancing drug, yet you don't hear anything about them. Well, they were included in the banned substances list adopted by mlb, but only as an afterthought and after
a majority of the players bitched and screamed against them being banned.

Re: Bonds cheating and everyone knowing that he's cheating.

Ok, if everyone knows that he cheats and used 'roids, that would mean that the commissioner and the powers that be at major league baseball also knew/know this. So why don't they suspend him or ban him from the game.

And here's the thing that puzzles me. Many of the Bonds haters bleat and shriek that the obvious evidence for his using 'roids is that his body shape has changed dramatically, going from a slim, lithe well toned body to a bulked up muscle packed frame and that the size of his head has increased dramatically.

First off, the head thing is a bunch of crap, simply because the head can't increase in size at Bonds age because the bones in the skull stopped growing over 35 years ago.

But let's just say for the sake of argument that Bonds was doing 'roids, and that's why his body changed in appearence and why he bulked up so much.

Well, I'd say it's safe to assume that Bonds is getting tested regularly for 'roids these days and that he isn't using them, yet his body has maintained the same appearence. Same bulky muscle. Explain that.

Everything I've read about roids says that if you go off of them for an extended period of time, you will lose the muscle mass that you had built up.

Oh yeah, Pete Rose is a scumhound, plain and simple.

He still maintains that he didn't do anything wrong
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.