This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If the HoF wanted to let him in i would not care. No one employed by baseball can wager on baseball, and he is not capable of stopping. If you reinstate him and someone hires him you'll just be kicking him out again when he keeps betting. Plus he did sign a lifetime ban
Since the HoF has tied its eligibility to MLB's banned list, there really isn't anywhere for him to get in. Now, perhaps (I suspect) they did that to wash their hands of the controversy which is understandable.
Except their is a federal law saying Fantasy Sports, (Draft Kings) is not gambling under certain conditions with DFS companies follow.. Part of the UIEGA.
Pffft. They can call the blue elephant an orange giraffe but guess what...it's still a blue elephant.
Yep, that's what Pete did, bet on the "outcome" of games.
Yep, I know what the legal description of gambling is. Doesn't mean I agree with it.Bet you this (pun intended) within 2 years Draft Kings, and others of it's ilk, will be legally considered gambling.Getzlaf15 said:
Wow, you're gonna lump juicers who changed the very fabric of the game to Rose betting on games? It has never been proven or even spoken that Rose purposely used his ability to alter the game in any way. I'm sure he bet on his own team to win but we don't have much proof if any that he meade in game decisions to turn the game one way or the other.Ramblin Wreck said:
Six states have had it illegal since Day 1.
This is not entirely true.Walking Boot said:
JFC that's the biggest load of crap ever. Lets see how Hank Aaron would've done without amphetamines/greenies
Players taking PEDs are trying to win. Players that bet on baseball may actively try to lose. That's why betting is so much worse.
Settle down Beavis. All I said is they all belong in the HOF based on stats and their full story should be told (Rose bet on baseball and Bonds juiced). Don't add more context to it than that.
The accomplishments the juicers achieved served as an encouragement for many people in society to use PEDs, many of which will live the rest of their lives with the negative effects that come with them, except of those of course who died from them. Society should look down on anyone who uses them, especially those who's fame results in people assuming them to be a role model, even as unfair as that assumption is.
Huh? The issue with Rose isn't the morality of gambling at all. The issue is gambling on baseball by someone involved in the sport in a capacity that allows them to influence outcomes. It's a totally different issue.
This. Thank god last night's GOP debate has numbed me when it comes to stupid things politicians say.
I didn't insinuate that it had anything to do with morality. What is socially accepted <> what is moral. In addition, the desire to throw a game isn't mutually exclusive to those who stand to gain on a bet if the game is lost. However, society has a mutual exclusivity assumption because of how MLB has handled this over the decades, which is again reflects decade old social views.TobiasFunke said:
You referred to MLB's outdated mindset and the conservative nature of baseball fans. I don't see how that relevant at all. Nobody in any sport, no matter how progressive, would tolerate a player or coach betting on their sport at all, and certainly not on their own team. This isn't a gray area, and isn't something you can compare to PED use or something. It's really really really wrong. It totally undermines the integrity of the sport. I'm surprised they even hear his appeals, even considering reinstatement seems too soft to me. And that's coming from someone who loves to gamble, things sports gambling should be 100% legal, and doesn't have any strong feelings about Rose or the Reds on the field.
I agree they aren't even comparable. In fact, it's my point. PEDs are worse.
I think maybe you're still missing the real problem with what Rose did? Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with what baseball fans think of gambling or gamblers generally. When I say "the integrity of the game" I'm not referring to some high-minded good vs evil nonsense. I'm referring to the legitimacy of the actual results of the games. Having a player or coach who bets on the sport he plays or coaches, even if he's only betting on his team, is basically like having a dirty ref. It introduces an element of bias, an ulterior motive for a person whose behavior influences the results. All sports fans- not just baseball fans- need to know the results of their games are honest results. Rose is no better than Tim Donaghy, or the 1919 White Sox, or a fighter who throws a fight. I don't care that he gambled and still gambles. I wouldn't even care if he gambled on baseball, if he bet on games that didn't involve his team and took place after his team was eliminated or something, other than the fact that it was against the rules. It's really not about gambling at all.
I'm not arguing that Pete should not be banned from baseball. Of course he should. My position on this is that people's lives and health in society are more important than the integrity of a for profit sports league. Both gamblers and PED abusers should be banned from baseball to protect the integrity of MLB, but PED abusers need an additional level of vilification to discourage society from doing PEDs too. This additional step isn't necessary to discourage gambling. That additional step was however the social norm a century ago, and still exists in baseball fans minds skewing their perception of this.
Ah, I see what you're saying.
For some, gambling can beI thought it meant he had a terminal illness.
It'd be great if this happened and they unveiled a bust of him with a cheesy grin while holding a ticket that says "P. Rose to make HOF posthumously YES +550 / $1000 to WIN $5500"
