Report: Rose admits he bet on baseball

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oD...ov=ap&type=lgns

 

Report: Rose admits in book to betting on baseball

 

 

January 3, 2004

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Pete Rose admits in his upcoming autobiography that he gambled on baseball, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Saturday.

 

The newspaper cited an unidentified source who was briefed on the book.

 

The New York Times, citing a source in major league baseball, reported Wednesday that Rose admitted to betting on baseball at a meeting with commissioner Bud Selig.

 

Rodale Inc., which is publishing ``My Prison Without Bars,'' said the book will go on sale Thursday. Cathy Gruhn, publicist for the Emmaus publishing company, declined to comment to the Inquirer on the book's contents.

 

Selig did not comment Friday to the Inquirer. However, the newspaper reported Saturday that sources close to Selig said he has not made a decision about Rose's application for reinstatement, and any missteps in the book could cost Rose.

 

Rose's ban from baseball prevents him from being eligible for the Hall of Fame. Some observers believe he would have to confess to gambling on baseball as a condition for possible reinstatement.

 

Following a six-month investigation, Rose was banned from the sport for life in August 1989 by then-commissioner Bart Giamatti. Despite agreeing to the ban, the game's career hits leader has steadfastly denied betting on baseball while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds.

 

Rose applied for reinstatement in 1997 and met with Selig in November 2002 to press his case. The Times said Rose acknowledged betting on baseball at that meeting.

 

Selig's top deputy, chief operating officer Bob DuPuy, has talked several times with Rose's representatives.

 

As part of an agreement between Giamatti and Rose, baseball never formally concluded that Rose was guilty of gambling on the sport. However, Giamatti stated that he personally believed Rose had done so.

 

So now everyone expects that Rose will be let back in. I don't get it. If Rose really did bet on baseball, then the last thing that should happen is his reinstatement. Oh well. If this process takes its expected course, Rose would become eligible for the Hall. He would get one shot with the BBWAA, and if he doesn't make it then, he would need to get in through the veterans' committee, which consists of current Hall members.

 

With over 4,000+ hits, Rose is a shoe-in for Hall inclusion on stats alone. The issue is the gambling, which WILL figure into his HOF chances. The writers will certainly take that into account. Rose would need 75% to forget all about the gambling. I'm not sure that'll happen. If and when it goes to the Vets, I'm happy letting them decide. If 75% of former players decide Rose is worthy, then I really can't argue with it.

[Vern Gagne 0]

If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.

[CanadianChris 0]

If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.

And the Veterans Committee isn't nearly as likely to vote him in as the writers would be.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm not sure the Veterans' Committee is likely to vote anyone in. If they don't, the HOF is sure to modify the process in a few years.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't think he will be.

 

Sellig seems the type that would try to entice him with the possiblity of being let in and then once he got what he wanted no do it.

[Guest Anglesault]

Eh, I never had a problem with what he did anyway.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I don't think he will be.

 

Sellig seems the type that would try to entice him with the possiblity of being let in and then once he got what he wanted no do it.

That could be true. However, Selig never seemed the type capable of outsmarting someone.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

This isn't really big news. Everybody knows he bet on baseball, the real question is whether or not he bet against the Reds while managing them. His book is going to sell big though

[Vern Gagne 0]

If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.

And the Veterans Committee isn't nearly as likely to vote him in as the writers would be.

Several HOFers like Mike Schmidt, and I believe Henry Aaron have spoken out in favor of Rose. I think he makes it in the Veterans Committee.

[Guest Anglesault]

This isn't really big news. Everybody knows he bet on baseball, the real question is whether or not he bet against the Reds while managing them. His book is going to sell big though

Now, if he did THAT I'd have problems.

[Vern Gagne 0]

This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

[Bored 0]

I'm 100% for him in the Hall of Fame as a player and let the guy show up for Reds games and events. I just hope Selig isn't stupid enough to allow him to work in MLB again as that he should never be allowed to do.

[Guest Anglesault]

This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

 

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

 

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

 

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.

[Vern Gagne 0]

AS. The comment was directed at Olympic Slam. He's the one that said this isn't anything new.

 

IMO...Keep Rose out of Baseball, and the HOF because of that haircut he had.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

 

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

 

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

 

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.

Associating with gamblers is the problem, and a connection MLB tries hard to avoid. And here's a possible problem. A major league manager gets in deep debt with a bookie. What can he do to repay that debt? Maybe he's coerced into effecting a game or two. Then you have a problem. Its the association of gamblers and players/managers that's the problem.

[CanadianChris 0]

If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.

And the Veterans Committee isn't nearly as likely to vote him in as the writers would be.

Several HOFers like Mike Schmidt, and I believe Henry Aaron have spoken out in favor of Rose. I think he makes it in the Veterans Committee.

There's not nearly enough Rose supporters on the committee for him to make it. Most people on the committee are guys who played in the 50s and 60s, and they're pretty much to a man disgusted with Rose. Very unlikely that the committee votes him in.

[CanadianChris 0]

This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

 

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

 

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

 

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.

What kind of message does it send to bookies if he bet on last night's game, but he's not betting on tonight's game? Obviously he thinks they're going to lose. You can not under any circumstances bet on games involving your own team, in either direction, if you exert as much control over the outcome as the manager.

[2GOLD 0]

Just let him back in already. I know longer care.

 

If baseball let drug dealers, racists, wife beaters and murderers stay then a gambler might as well remain as well.

 

Can't take the moral high ground now.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Selig should reinstate Rose, then they induct him into the HOF with the ceremony at Cooperstown and everything but then Kane comes and Tombstones Pete, for the clever Selig had orchestrated a swerve all aong.

[Guest Anglesault]

This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

 

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

 

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

 

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.

Associating with gamblers is the problem, and a connection MLB tries hard to avoid. And here's a possible problem. A major league manager gets in deep debt with a bookie. What can he do to repay that debt? Maybe he's coerced into effecting a game or two. Then you have a problem. Its the association of gamblers and players/managers that's the problem.

Makes sense.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I can't think of anything that would make me stop saying it:

 

FUCK Pete Rose.

 

He's a liar, a swindler, a shameless self-promoter, and a man who remorselessly did as much damage as he could to baseball while concerning himself only with Pete Rose. If he ever gets into the Hall of Fame, however it happens, I really hope he's died first. The thought of him tainting Cooperstown is sickening to me. My sincere hope is that he never gets reinstated for what he did, and I don't feel he ever should.

[1234-5678 0]

I think he just be let in just based on his stats alone. It's not like the rest of the guys in the Hall are saints or anything. Ty Cobb? Didn't he kill someone? Beat his wife? Babe Ruth? A big time boozer?

 

Give Pete a break, everyone gambles here and there, whether it be going to AC or the office football pool.

[CanadianChris 0]

I think he just be let in just based on his stats alone. It's not like the rest of the guys in the Hall are saints or anything. Ty Cobb? Didn't he kill someone? Beat his wife? Babe Ruth? A big time boozer?

 

Give Pete a break, everyone gambles here and there, whether it be going to AC or the office football pool.

Wow, talk about comparing apples to chainsaws.

 

There's a great quote in someone's sig on here that equates people who are trying to get Shoeless Joe Jackson into the Hall of Fame to women who hang around courthouses fantasizing about getting with accused murderers.

 

I consider Pete Rose supporters to be the same. He did the crime -- the ONLY crime that gets you banned for life from baseball -- and he should have to do the time. The HoF isn't about needing to be a saint to get enshrined, but it is about respecting the integrity of the game. Rose completely disrespected the game, and doesn't ever deserve to go into Cooperstown.

[1234-5678 0]

Alright you've changed my point of view. Although Shoeless Joe was probably worse then Pete Rose. As far as we know now, Pete never lost any games on purpose.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think he just be let in just based on his stats alone. It's not like the rest of the guys in the Hall are saints or anything. Ty Cobb? Didn't he kill someone? Beat his wife? Babe Ruth? A big time boozer?

 

I consider Pete Rose supporters to be the same. He did the crime -- the ONLY crime that gets you banned for life from baseball -- and he should have to do the time. The HoF isn't about needing to be a saint to get enshrined, but it is about respecting the integrity of the game. Rose completely disrespected the game, and doesn't ever deserve to go into Cooperstown.

 

Gambling isn't the only crime. Basically, any outside attempt to fix the result of a game will get you banned as well. As for the first post, there aren't any rules against what Cobb and Ruth did (and baseball was full of those characters in their time). There ARE rules against gambling however. That's the issue with Rose.

[Guest MikeSC]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I can't think of anything that would make me stop saying it:

 

FUCK Pete Rose.

 

He's a liar, a swindler, a shameless self-promoter, and a man who remorselessly did as much damage as he could to baseball while concerning himself only with Pete Rose. If he ever gets into the Hall of Fame, however it happens, I really hope he's died first. The thought of him tainting Cooperstown is sickening to me. My sincere hope is that he never gets reinstated for what he did, and I don't feel he ever should.

Um, Tom, is there anything Pete could do to hurt baseball that the players union and owners haven't done more effectively yet?

-=Mike

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm not Tom, but I'll answer yes. The most important thing to any sporting event is its legitimacy. To compromise the integrity that a sporting event is a fair contest does more damage than any front office shenanigans ever could.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm not Tom, but I'll answer yes. The most important thing to any sporting event is its legitimacy. To compromise the integrity that a sporting event is a fair contest does more damage than any front office shenanigans ever could.

Yup, there you go, Mike. The owners and players, with their bickering, have given the game something of a PR black eye. Rose and his gambling, though, brings the legitimacy of the sport into question. Even with millionaires and billionaires fighting over money, no one could say baseball was not a fair and legit athletic contest. When the manager of one team has money riding on the outcome, though, that's no longer certain.

 

Look at boxing for an example of a sport whose reputation has been damaged beyond repair by fixes, dives taken, etc. Baseball doesn't need that, and certainly can't afford it.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not Tom, but I'll answer yes.  The most important thing to any sporting event is its legitimacy.  To compromise the integrity that a sporting event is a fair contest does more damage than any front office shenanigans ever could.

should Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa also be banned for life. both are certain hall of famers, but both apparently used performance enhancers and McGwire of course admitted to/quit doing that at the end of his career; and Sosa was caught using a corked bat. these clearly call into question the legitamacy of the game.

 

and, if Rose only bet on his team winning...how is that really 'bad', hes betting on him team winning. if he admitted betting against the reds, thatd be alot different.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

In with Pete, out with Racist Dusty...