You created an account specifically to post a pro-Pete Rose screed?
I've never understood the magic powers that Rose seems to have over the hearts and minds of his fans, as seen here in posts # 11, 15, and now #50. I'm pretty sure Rose could kill, cook and eat a small child on live TV and there would still be people who would react to his subsequent punishment with declarations about the hypocrisy of those punishing him or of how the HOF works, and/or how they grew up admiring him or some rot. All of that is so fundamentally irrelevant to the fact that Pete Rose is a gambling addict who committed the cardinal sin of professional sports, among many other intertwined misdeeds.
That's really where the consideration of him should begin and end, for any thoughtful baseball fan. There are so many other great stories to tell about legendary baseball players... the last century-plus is chock full of them. Why must we defend his honor? Him, of all people?
Friend, I am a Dodgers fan and have been since I was five years old, so make that the late 60s. In other words, no love for one Pete Rose here. You would do well to not assume that you have even the remotest clue as to the state of mind of others, since you clearly have no such clue.
That said, the MLB otherwise loves gambling addicts, as does the NBA. Here, from ESPN today:
- The previous point spread high on the road this season was Golden State and Cleveland in Philadephia, both -16.5 (both visitors won, but Philly covered).
- Golden State was -18 entering today's contest in Los Angeles. L.A. leads 84-73 with one quarter to play.
And so gambling drives interest in the game, and that means $$$ for the various and sundry leagues, to include the MLB, the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, and so on. As we can see from the above tweet itself, EPSN also makes $$$ owing to the interest in gambling driving interest in the game. To borrow a phrase, you can take that to the bank (showing my age again).
The only problem that the MLB had with Rose and gambling was that he never bet against the Reds. For what I mean, Rose lied when he said that he bet on every Reds game, as he didn't and there's betting records to prove it. Accordingly, for those who knew of Rose's gambling activities, when Rose did not bet on the Reds, they could take such to mean that Rose himself did not believe that his team would win the game. And so we had a sort of trading on insider knowledge vis-a-vis Reds games.
Now, so you get the point, well and truly, you are entirely free to bet on some other teams in the league:
any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game
in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
So if you're a Red Sox player, you can bet the Yankees-Rays game. And so the concern isn't gambling but instead the honor and integrity of the gambling itself. Not the game itself, but the gambling itself.
And for the irony of it, Selig said it himself:
"Beyond fostering increased suspicion of underhanded dealing," continued Selig, "increased sports gambling also makes it more likely that people will actually attempt to 'fix' games
or obtain inside information from people directly involved in the sport."
Why does the MLB care for a moment about that
last? It can't and so won't affect winning or losing on the field, right? I mean, no one changes the outcome of the game if I am told that Player X is going to be a late scratch, right? So as I said, despite all of their protestations to the contrary (some indeed do protest too much), the MLB understands that gambling drives interest in the game and hence drives the MLB revenue up. That takes a hit, though, if we all stop gambling because we think that the gambling itself is rigged by way of some having some inside info (same on Wall St., what with its own prohibition on insider trading). That's what Rose was and is about. As there is zero, repeat zero evidence that he ever bet against his own team (and so zero evidence that the "fix" was ever in). And believe it or not, Vegas wants what Selig wants:
As LVH's Kornegay explains, "We do our best to protect the games' integrity, and that's why our relationship with the leagues has been better over the last 10 years or so. We both realized we want the same thing -- we want these games to be true and fair.
The integrity of these games is their product, as well as ours. And we'll do all we can to assist in any sort of criminal investigation to bring those involved to justice."
As I've said, added to the integrity of the game itself is indeed the integrity of the gambling itself,
or obtain inside information from people directly involved in the sport, and so if you wish to condemn Rose as many do, then at least get the condemnation right, which right condemnation is that he traded on insider info. That was his cardinal sin.
Now well and truly lastly, as a nearly lifelong Dodgers fan, again, no love for either Mr. Rose or the once Big Red Machine that he was a part of. But what he did on the field speaks for itself. And I, for one, refuse to overlook all that was done on the field when the history of the MLB is otherwise one vast panorama littered with moral failure. Only souls such as yourself pretend otherwise, with your some other great stories. What stories are those? About how everyone in the game before Jackie should have the asterisk next to the name with the legend explaining, Owing to the MLB enforced segregation, he played in a vastly inferior league, and that asterisk remains even after Jackie, until the gentleman's agreement on just how many you could have ended as well. But then there's Sandy and Don, and then Curt Flood refusing to play for a racist fan base and a team that didn't care about winning, with the theme song for all three being, Maggie's Farm. And for the irony of the moment, from my end at least, well, I haven't enabled much of the madness for a long while now, since to start with, my last trip to the ball park was game 1 of A's v. Dodgers, so Gibson's iconic HR, and for the irony of that moment, absent those three years of collusion, Gibson himself would never have been a Dodger, and so, so much for the integrity of the game. So other than Jackie, and Sandy and Don, and Curt Flood, there ain't much in the way of great stories, unless, of course, you've fallen into the grossest of gross idolatry. And on that note, for some good news, rumor has it that Bud the Colluder will also one day have his own statue, in Milwaukee, with the good news being that if I'm ever in Milwaukee, at least I'll know where to pee.
