Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  

Old Yesterday, 09:50 AM   #5321
Knirps for moisture
BrainDamage's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Originally Posted by necrosis1193
Because that proves nothing. We already knew he bet on baseball games, he admitted it. An investigation claiming that Pete Rose bet on Reds games while a member of the organization is just an investigation confirming what we already know. It was an exercise in futility if all anyone was trying to do was prove he bet on baseball games, because that's already an accepted fact. The purpose of this investigation was to find out the extent of those bets, and more specific details regarding them to provide context, such as whether or not he bet while he was playing, or whether or not he bet against his own teams.
You realize the Dowd report I'm referencing was the result of the original investigation in 1989, correct? My point (and it's backed up by what Dowd said in that article) is that when they first investigated him for gambling they had enough evidence to prove he gambled regardless if it was for or against the Reds. That's enough for permanent ineligibility, so they didn't need to extend the investigation.

Originally Posted by necrosis1193
But the way I've always felt about it is that, unless he bet against the Reds and intentionally failed at his job in order to win money, then his gambling was inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, at least as far as whether or not it's a big enough issue to warrant the lifetime ban and being exempt from Cooperstown. And considering the big difference in the implications of bets against the Reds and bets for them, I find it beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't just extend their deadline two or three days if they were that close to something that damning.
Again, it's possible that betting for your team can alter your strategy and tarnish the integrity of the game. I think that's the bigger point here, betting opens up the possibility of fixing/throwing games, point shaving, etc., so I'm OK with a no tolerance policy in terms of declaring players ineligible for betting.

Originally Posted by necrosis1193
I disagree. I'm less firm on this than the above, but I have a hard time believing as fierce a competitor as Rose would be willing to jeopardize his season to win some under-the-table bets. He knows baseball better than almost anyone, he's not dumb enough to do something that would jeopardize his chance to get a fourth ring for $200. Between that and the discrepancy between what the bets likely were and the performance bonus in most managerial and coaching contracts for a playoff berth/world series berth/world series win/etc, it doesn't make sense to me that, if he only bet on the Reds, that he would've altered his strategy because of it.
Fierce competitor, sure, but debt and a gambling addiction might enough to get him to change his strategy to win games he bet on. Also, Dowd thought (don't know if it was in the report and I'm not going to read through it again to find out) that the betting was connected to the mob, which could have had an influence as well. I'm not necessarily saying I believe that these things are true, but the fact that they're possible is enough to justify banishment knowing that he bet on baseball games he took part in in any way.

Originally Posted by necrosis1193
Again, this is confirming what we already know. The only new information in this is the "from 1984 to 1986" part, which is important, but does nothing to prove he altered his performance for the sake of his bets.

I'm well aware of the rule, but considering I've been in support of Rose's reinstatement, I don't need to explain that I'm not in total agreement with it.
My point in both quotes you responded to here was to point out that during the initial investigation in '89 there was no reason to extend it to determine if he bet against the Reds.

Nice to see some good discussion in this thread again
How to achieve Frank Zappa's guitar tone:
Originally Posted by Thefallofman
Step 1: Buy a Gibson SG
Step 2: Insert Green Ringer, EQ, 3 dead squirrels and a microwave into said SG
Step 3: Plug in and freak the **** out.
BrainDamage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:12 PM   #5322
UG Newbie
TheChaz's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Matt Duffy was a triple short of the cycle yesterday. Today he's a single short with at least one more PA.

edit: damn. grounded out in the 8th.

Last edited by TheChaz : Yesterday at 06:41 PM.
TheChaz is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 PM.

Forum Archives / About / TOS / Advertise with us / Customer Support / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2015
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.