False Equivalency Theater, Starring Pete Rose
I never saw Pete Rose play, unless you count grainy footage of him plowing into Ray Fosse, sucker punching Buddy Harrelson, or acting very badly in Aqua Velva commercials. Perhaps I'd feel differently about him if I had. It seems that folks from older generations have sympathy for him, even if they think betting on baseball is a pretty heinous thing to do. And in a purely abstract sense, it does seem a shame that the all-time hits leader is not in the Hall of Fame.
But as I said, I never saw Pete Rose play, so I have no fond memories attached to that bowl haircut. As such, I firmly believe he has only himself to blame for his absence in Cooperstown, and if he never gets in, that would suit me fine.
Harsh words, perhaps. But I have zero sympathy for the man, especially whenever he opens his mouth in order to place his foot inside, as he did while talking about a new documentary about his life.
Actually, the documentary does not cover his entire life. Just the good parts. The documentary--4192: The Crowning of the Hit King--focuses on his pursuit of Ty Cobb's record and appears to have been made with Rose's full cooperation. That's why you won't hear anything about the sordid end of his baseball career: the gambling allegations, his troubles with the IRS, and his banning from the game.
"We didn't want any of the reinstatement stuff, the gambling stuff, the commissioner's stuff in there," Rose told USA Today. "That's old news." Of course, this begs the question, if the "gambling stuff" is old news, doesn't that make him breaking the hit record even older news?
But that's not the dumbest thing Rose says about the documentary, or himself. As Rob Neyer pointed out, Rose has the testicular fortitude to say that what he did was not as bad as players using steroids.
"What I did and what the guys who used stuff did -- they were both bad," Rose says. "People say the most sacred thing about baseball is the records and taking performance-enhancing drugs (impacts that). What I did I did because I wanted my team to win every single night. It was wrong -- absolutely wrong -- but I don't like to compare."
Where to begin?
Pete Rose bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet on his own team. He insists he only bet on the Reds to win, but considering he's changed his story innumerable times since the accusations first surfaced, why would we believe anything he says?
Pete Rose bet on baseball. I repeat this because I feel that some people ignore or forget just how insanely dangerous betting within sports is. Gambling is banned in every single major sport for one reason: To keep the sport a sport. There are two things that make sports compelling to watch: 1) unpredictable outcomes, and 2) all participants trying their hardest to win. When players (or coaches/managers) gamble, it removes both of these factors.
You can say whatever you want about players who use performance-enhancing drugs. But those who do are trying to perform at their best. Whether that constitutes an unfair advantage or not is up to you to decide. Considering that baseball did not have an articulated or enforced policy against what we now define as PEDs for a very long time, presumably anyone could have used them, thus essentially giving no one an advantage. Baseball has a long tradition of honoring the adage that "if you can get away with it, it ain't cheating." Just ask Gaylord Perry or Mike Scott.
But even if you want to say that PED users corrupted the record books, there is no way that's just as bad as someone who puts himself in a position where it may not be in his best interest to do his utmost to win a game. That is what Pete Rose did. And he did it while he was a manager, while he had direct control over an entire team. Who played and who didn't. When to pull pitchers and when to leave them in. To me, this is simply staggering.
What blows my mind the most: Rose says, What I did I did because I wanted my team to win every single night. Is he saying that his uncontrollable gambling addiction enabled him to play or manage better? Because that is straight-up koo-koo bonkers. And is also exactly the kind of thing that a hopeless addict (regardless of addiction) would say. ("I drive better when I'm drunk!")
Speaking of which, Rose gets on his high horse about steroids, but as Neyer also pointed out, he almost surely partook of another PED: amphetamines. Use of this now-banned substance was rampant in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, it was okay to take them to get revved up for doubleheaders or day games after night games. Nowadays, they're illegal. If Rose didn't use speed, he would have been in a very small minority.
Maybe this seems like kicking a man when he's down, but I have zero sympathy for Pete Rose. He's never been honest about his transgressions. He chose to accept a ban from baseball so that the commissioner's office wouldn't pursue the gambling allegations, then proceeded to whine for the next 20 years about how unfair this was. And, again, he bet on his own team--52 times in 1987 alone, according to the Dowd report, to the tune of $10,000 a day.
You can decide for yourself if this makes him a tragic figure or just morally bankrupt. But insisting what he did is not as bad as doing steroids is insane.
101 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This, a thousand times this
You can say whatever you want about players who use performance-enhancing drugs. But those who do are trying to perform at their best.
Bingo. There is absolutely no comparison between what Bonds did and what Rose did. Bonds put all that stuff in his body in an effort to drag a mediocre team to a World Championship (and very nearly did in 2002). Rose….who knows?
I might have more sympathy for Rose if he weren’t also a cheat in other areas of life, like marriage and taxes. Plus, he’s overrated as a player because of the hits thing. A lot of people in Cincinnati will look at you like you just praised Osama bin Laden if you point out that Joe Morgan was a far better player on the 70s Reds than Rose.
Mark Cuban for owner! Save us from the Wilpons!
by Greenpoint Ian on Feb 11, 2011 12:12 PM EST reply actions
Didnt he only bet
on his team to win?
"The team is not for sale, in whole or in part. There is no need to sell, there is no reason to sell. There will be no sale."
-Dave Howard
by Dandy Salderson on Feb 11, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
if you believe Rose
but considering he’s changed his story many, many times in the last 20+ years, can we take him at his word? also, let’s just say he gets in deep with some unsavory characters. he puts himself in a position where he could inhibit his team’s ability to win to help out bookies. I don’t think there’s any compelling evidence that his happened, but Rose made this a distinct possibility, which in my opinion is a million times worse than steroids.
by Matthew Callan on Feb 11, 2011 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
Pretty Sure We'd Know If Rose Bet on His Teams to Lose
The Dowd report is pretty thorough and lots of reporters were all over the Rose scandal in the late 1980s.
That neither absolves Rose or should over turn his lifetime ban.
by millsy on Feb 12, 2011 2:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The danger
is even if betting on his team to win, he gets in so deep with bookies that he is forced to do things, give information they can use. He can say he never bet on the Reds to lose. Did he ever tell them a starter was hungover (and didn’t place a bet himself)?
It is merely putting himself in a compromising position that is the problem. Even if he only bet on the Reds to win.
You Are Confusing Whether I Think What Rose Did Was Wrong With
whether I think he fixed games.
I think what he did was VERY WRONG and he has been appropriately punished for it. I have no problem with Rose’s ban from baseball.
I also I am pretty confident that if he had actually fixed games we would know because his case has been investigated up, down, left and right. This has nothing to do with what Rose said, it has to do with how thoroughly this has been investigated between the Dowd Report and the reporters covering the story (it makes the Times coverage of the Wilpons-Madoff look tame).
possibly true
but even if it is, it would change the way he played the game. He might be more or less aggressive on the basepaths to cover things like point spreads etc depending on the kind of bets he was placing… Even betting on your team to win can change the way you approach the game.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 11, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Are there really point spreads in baseball gambling?
My sports wagering is limited to low $ Super Bowl boxes, but that doesn’t seem practical in baseball.
by madisonmetsfan on Feb 11, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
usually its a money line
bet $100 to win $120 if you pick the underdog or bet $120 to win $100 if you pick the favorite – with the non $100 value adjusted depending on the disparity of talent.
theres probably more varieties and nuances but i dont do much baseball betting.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
That makes sense.
Especially since the better team may be throwing its #5 starter against the other team’s ace. But what this means is that Rose has no incentive to shave runs or run up the score; if he bet on the Reds that day, he just needed to win, which shouldn’t affect how he manages the game. I’d still ban him for eternity, though.
by madisonmetsfan on Feb 11, 2011 8:20 PM EST up reply actions
“Bonds put all that stuff in his body in an effort to drag a mediocre team to a World Championship (and very nearly did in 2002). "
Totally disagree. You’re making it sound like Bonds didn’t want to take steroids but selflessly sacrificed himself for his team.
I think it’s far more likely Bonds took steroids because he was jealous of the inflated numbers those who were taking steroids produced and his ego wouldn’t let him be anything than the #1 player in baseball…and if he needed roids to accomplish it, no big deal.
So instead of a selfless act, it was a totally selfish one.
by hunterfan on Feb 11, 2011 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
"sacrificed himself for the team"
I never said that, but it’s hard to see how his “selfish act” didn’t massively help out the 2000-2004 Giants. He used steroids to improve his performance, not diminish it, and that led to better performance by the Giants.
Gambling is a completely different animal.
Mark Cuban for owner! Save us from the Wilpons!
by Greenpoint Ian on Feb 11, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
It’s not rhapsodizing about Barry’s character (as if anyone would) to say that he saw other players using and then giving surpassing performances, so he decided to use himself in order to give a surpassing performance. I have no doubt that he wanted records, but I also have no doubt that he wanted a World Series at least as much.
players taking steroids
are jeopardizing their health so fans’ favorite teams can have a better chance to win games. they are heroes. ken caminiti gave his life for padres fans. pete rose is just a typical lowliffe scumbag who happened to be awesome at baseball.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
This Is Correct
I have read Love Me, Hate and Game of Shadows and Bonds started steroids because he was jealous of McGuire and Sosa and knew he could hit more homers than them. It had nothing to do with getting to the World Series.
You just can't say this.
I can recall interviews and clips with him saying repeatedly that his main goal was to get to the World Series. He was already a hall of famer. You don’t have to say he wasn’t jealous of McGuire and Sosa to believe that his overarching goal was a championship.
Read Love
Love Me Hate Me has a chapter devoted to Bonds decision to juice. It was largely driven by jealousy that Bonfs had an amazing 1998 season that was over shaddo
by millsy on Feb 12, 2011 2:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Got Cut Off
Love Me Hate Me has a chapter devoted to Bonds decision. It was driven by jealousy that Bonds had an amazing 1998 season and Sosa and McGuire got all the attention.
Bonds knew he was a superior player and decided to juice to prove he could hit more HRs than both which he did in 2001.
I have no doubt Bonds wanted a ring but it was not an initial driving force in his decision to juice.
by millsy on Feb 12, 2011 2:35 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Your conclusion doesn't follow
Yes, he was jealous of the attention McGuire and Sosa were getting, because he knew that without the drug enhancement, he was better than they were. So, if he also took PEDs, he would be better than he was naturally, and ergo, back to being better than the rest of the juicers. But you can’t draw the conclusion that this meant that he suddenly decided, with the home run chase, that records were the thing that mattered, especially not when he’s quoted over and over in the latter half of his career saying that his primary goal was the World Series.
Using PEDs is like going up a weight class in boxing
If all players were clean*, it’s a light-weight bout.
Add steroids, HGH, and greenies and you’re talking about a heavyweight matchup.
It’s not cheating if everyone had access. It might be stupid or immoral, but no one on a minor league roster would have had trouble finding the stuff if they wanted it.
*this hasn’t happened since ever
Image credit for Jerrysaurus goes to astromets
The other reason every major sport bans gambling
is to keep out organized crime. PEDs can at least on one dimension be viewed as a technological advance. I have no issue with someone who says they’re unfair, as long as they acknowledge that the distinctions between legitimate and “performance-enhancing” medical technology is pretty arbitrary.
But no one can deny that opening the door for thugs to threaten your kids if a guy doesn’t strike out 3 times is pretty friggin’ bad for sports.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Oh, and I saw Rose play
(but mostly in the 80s with the Phillies) and I don’t have much sympathy.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Yeah Because Organized Crime Isn't Anywhere Near Illegal and Hard to Get Drugs
Mobsters peddle illegally obtained prescription medication too so don’t be surprised if they were involved in the steroid scandal too.
Actually Bonds Did Steroids For His Ego
if you read the books about him. Getting his team to the World Series was just a side effect.
Not to sound to obvious, but
Rose was a Cincy native who came up through the Reds system. Morgan was neither.
What's the score, boys?
What did Bugs Bunny do?
What's with the Carrot League baseball today?
doesn't matter
he should still be in the hall of fame.. just like clemens, mcgwire, bonds, and all the drug cheats.
What Would Matt Szczur Do?
by Hoyadestroya85 on Feb 11, 2011 12:24 PM EST reply actions
Why?
Unlike them, he broke an existing MLB rule, the only one so severe that it was posted in every clubhouse. He also agreed to be banned from the HOF.
"And that's why anybody who invested with Lenny Dykstra should really call that number. Lawyers are standing by."
by BobbyV_Incognito on Feb 13, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
Pretty much everyone I know who saw Pete Rose play
thinks he should be in the Hall of Fame.
You’re dissecting the crap Pete Rose says, but how is that relevant? Pete Rose is a clueless, self-serving, douche who likes to make excuses for himself. Everyone knows that.
Pete Rose the human being is a jerk.
Pete Rose the baseball player should be in the Hall of Fame. It’s a shame he isn’t.
if it's a shame
he’s the only one who’s the blame. he voluntarily agreed to be put on the ineligible list, because he was afraid MLB would hand over their evidence to the feds. i would have more sympathy for him if he’d been railroaded in some way, or if he’d ever been truly honest about what he did, but neither is the case.
by Matthew Callan on Feb 11, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
FWIW
I’ve read that there were some backroom shenanigans where it was more or less promised to Rose that if he would accept the lifetime ban, it that it would be lifted in a few years when the whole thing blew over.
It’s all just speculation b/c there is no smoking gun that I have seen, but personally, I believe that version of events (based on some of the things that have been said by Rose and others.)
I have no sympathy for Rose
I really think there might be a generational thing there, since I never saw him either. He broke the rules. His punishment is being ineligible for the record books. Nada bing, nada boom, all done.
Soon, Ichiro will be the all-time hitting champ (NPB + MLB).
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 11, 2011 12:38 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Matt,
I firmly believe he has only himself to blame for his absence in Cooperstown, and if he never gets in, that would suit me fine.
I DID see him play — far too many times — and I agree with this 1000%
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!? Right here: http://myentireteam.wordpress.com/
PETE ROSE HALL OF FAME
Perhaps I am going to date myself here, as an old fart, but, I grew up playing thrid base because of Pete Rose. He played on the Big Red Machine, along with such greats as Bench and Seaver, he, set the standerd by which players of today, play towards. He has not done anything that people do not do everyday. Everyone buys a lottery ticket, or, raffle ticket, buys a square in the Super Bowl pool, so, why is he so bad? Look at some of th eplayers in the HOF, wife beaters, drug addicts, cheats and liers, but, none of them bet on sports, so, it’s ok. Its time to stop sending mixed messages, that, drug addicts can get off drugs and alcholics can dry up, and, be forgiven, but, if you bet of sports its a sin that will never be forgiven. Rose played the game hard and went out to win every game, and, the HOF is all about his days as a player, not, a manager. If one steroid using player gets in the HOF then, Rose should be next in line.
yup piazzaHO
I don’t like Pete, he is rightfully banned, but cheating is cheating. it doesn’t matter if “at the time” PEDs/steroids etc was “legal” for MLB. it’s still cheating. you can’t carry inconsistencies. they’re all in, or they’re all out, of course, I doubt any of the cheaters will ever be in anyhow. [that is my hope].
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
by feslenraster on Feb 11, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
All due respect... but this has at least two absolutely fatal flaws
Before even getting into that, entry into the Hall of Fame (or denial) is not a statement on anyone’s worth as a human being. Some HOFs won’t go to heaven, and some guys who don’t make the Hall will nevertheless go to heaven (if there is such a place). I just think this mixed message thing is a complete non-issue.
Here’s where the Pete Rose to the HOF argument falls completely apart to me.
1. False equivalence. That was the whole point of the post. My buying a legal lottery ticket or even an illegal Super Bowl square does not have any impact on the outcome of a game. In no way does it threaten the game’s integrity like a participant who gambles on its outcome.
More to the point here, from the time of the Black Sox scandal baseball has been crystal clear that this is THE line you do not cross. If you cross it you will be banned—period. There is not, nor has there ever been, debate over this. By contrast, MLB did not have a formal policy with clear consequences on PEDs. You may not like their morals, or whatever, but players who did PEDs did not walk up to the button that says “DO NOT PUSH” and push the button. Rose did—and he did it fully cognizant of the consequences. Now he’s living with them.
2. Rose would be banned under your PED proposal too. I have NEVER understood why the Rose supporters would even open this can of worms. It looks like a real generational blind spot. The “well, if they let these drug users in they should let Rose in too,” argument doesn’t hold much water when he was one of them too. You can’t contrast Rose to PED users. He did that too.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Feb 11, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
If I could rec this on my phone I would
You’ll hafta wait till I get home.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 11, 2011 7:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
not a Rose supporter
just that to me what’s the difference, cheaters are cheaters whether it was allowed back then or not.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
by feslenraster on Feb 11, 2011 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
Factors
If Rose only bet on his own team to win, how does that affect the two factors you claim make sports compelling? IMO a lot depends on the nature of the betting
by fingertoes on Feb 11, 2011 1:47 PM EST via mobile reply actions
i did see him play
and i remember the local news showing the clip of him breaking the record. it’s a shame what he did, but he should not be in the HOF. neither should the roid takers.
maybe Andy Pettite can be a gateway drug for them all.
"they're still shitty"
Kind of random article for AA no?
It feels like I’ve read this article dozens of time already too.
Remember Rose
As a kid growing up, and watchiing the big red machine, I remember Rose playing, and, that is what I remember. I dont really care if he bet on baseball, or not, that has no bearing on what he did for the game, as a player. Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, these guys where far from gems, as, people, they have a few skeletons in the closet, so, why the double standerd? I think Rose was one of the great players to play the game, and, I have a right to my opinion, just, as you have a right to yours. LETS GO METS!!!!
You may have the right to have an opinion
but that doesn’t mean your opinion can’t be wrong or faulty in some way.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
by Ogre39666 on Feb 13, 2011 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Rose broke the one rule that gets you banned from baseball
End of story. He doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame because he broke the rules that would allow him access to the Hall of Fame. This seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Mark Cuban for owner! Save us from the Wilpons!
by Greenpoint Ian on Feb 11, 2011 2:49 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
From my understanding
There are hall of famers who bet on baseball back when it wasn’t against the rules. Why is gambling on baseball some sort of inviolable rule that trumps all others…especially when it wasn’t even always a rule?
Because
It calls into question the verity of what you’re seeing on the field.
Bets on the game introduce the possibility— however faint— that what you’re seeing may not entirely be on the level. Other scandals or transgressions may affect what you think of the players playing the game, or the people who run the teams. Betting potential delegitimizes the sport itself. It’s not sport if it’s fixed.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 11, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
In Glory of their Times
The CD version, Joe Wood claims (and I see no reason for him to lie) that Tris Speak and Ty Cobb both put up money to bet on baseball in a specific instance.
Should we be leading a movement to throw Speaker and Cobb out of the Hall of Fame because they called into question the integrity of what we saw on the field?
Not that I'm saying he's lying either, but
there’s a lack of evidence, other than his word. With Rose, the case against him is a bit more substantive.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 11, 2011 8:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Also a question that has never been successfully answered (to my mind)
Is why are we not making a distinction between betting and fixing games? They are definitely not the same.
If I’m a player for the Rockies, and I bet on the Yankees to win a Yankees/Red Sox game that night….how am I de-legitimizing baseball or the verity of what you’re seeing on the field?
That’s very different than fixing, like the Black Sox scandal.
I mean...do I really have to say slippery slope?
If I’m a player on the Rockies and I bet on the Yankees to win a Yankees/Red Sox game, and the Yankees are 30 games out and playing meaningless games, and their starting pitcher was a good friend of mine and I tell him I’ll cut him in on the action if he helps out on the spread…………am I de-legitimizing baseball or the verity of what you’re seeing on the field?
YES.
Your new scenario though...
Is an example of a fix instead of a bet. I agree fixing is bad. I don’t agree betting is.
But when actual participants are involved
the distinction between fixing and betting is mostly academic. Engaging in the latter opens the possibility of the former.
You cannot create a policy that bans fixing but not betting. A bettor would always have plausible deniability.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
betting on sports isnt a bad thing
in fact its an awesome thing. but if youre playing in the game that youre betting on it destroys the game. it is so far worse than PEDs and its not even close.
its not like you can tell players that betting on your team to win is ok but betting on them to lose or otherwise fixing games is not and then be able to enforce that edict without completing ruining the sport
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
but using PEDs to make yourself 10x stronger
and better than your opponent isn’t a bad thing? I’m just saying that ALL cheaters should be banned, particularly since they’ve all been caught (more or less).
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
by feslenraster on Feb 11, 2011 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
"Wow, Matt."
“You really… stripped me bare, guy.”

by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 11, 2011 3:08 PM EST reply actions
My eyes! They're burning!
We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!
by kingcritical on Feb 11, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
EVERY Pete Rose thread
Must have this picture in it at some point or another. It’s a law.
What has been seen cannot be unseen
There is no hope.... there is no future....there is only GRISSIONZ
The 2011 Mets- Rock bottom: We haven't reached it yet
I'm not sure
the HVW is pretty freaking hideous. But this is pretty nauseating too
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Feb 11, 2011 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
Am I the only one here old enough
to remember the joke about the guy going to the barber and the barber asking him if he wanted the Moe Howard or the Pete Rose?
Rose?
“A Rose By Another Name STINKS!!!”
——1973
It still hurts that he broke the NL consecutive-hit streak at Shea. He is one of the most DESPISED players in Mets history. He may even be more hated than any of WFAN’s daily NY Mets 2-Minute Hate Player of the Day.
When MLB apologises to Willie Mays and compensates him for monies lost for suspending him from the Mets coaching staff for doing ads for Vegas, then maybe I’ll reconsider the Rose case.
rose should be banned forever
it’s a good deterrent for players to know that if betting on baseball keeps an all time great like rose out then NO ONE is getting in if they bet on baseball. taking steroids is worth a 50 game suspension if you get caught a 2nd time. getting caught once betting on baseball SHOULD and IS a ban from MLB forever, including the hall. things are the way they should be. i feel no pity for rose. he will still be in the record books and encyclopedias forever.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
by kendynamo on Feb 11, 2011 4:41 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
true enough kendy
he will still be in the record books and encyclopedias forever— as will Baroids and “Big Mac” etc.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
PED Use Was Serious and Should Not Be Poo Pooed
I did see Pete Rose play and I am not going to defend his actions or say he should be in the Hall of Fame. However saying PED use was basically okay because these guys were just trying to improve their performance is as big a cop out as Rose saying he didn’t bet against his own team. The steroid use of the 1990-2005 eara is a huge problem for so many reasons.
1. Players Health – Steroids are banned in most sports in part b/c they have tremendous health side effects both short and long term including heart, kidney and liver problems. I can’t be the only one who wonders if Darryl Kyle, may he rest in peace, had blocked arteries in his heart due to steroid use. Heart disease is one of the side effects of steroids use and blocked arteries in the heart is a pretty unusual thing for an early 30s pro athlete. My guess we will soon start seeing relatively young former ballplayers come down with all sorts of diseases/cancers related to steroids abuse.
2. Unlevel Playing Field – Steroid use created a tremendously unlevel playing field and put pressure on the non-users to use. This was especially true with the marginal players who could be cut if they didn’t use and the older players who wanted to extend their careers (notice 35 yos now play their age). It is not good for a sport to be in the position where rampant PED use puts pressure on people concerned about putting the poison in their body to do so to keep their job.
3. Stat Perversion – My initial reaction is there are probably fewer true Hall of Famers from the 1990-2005 than the stats show. There are players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, as much as I hate both, who were clear Hall of Famers before they started juicing. But how do you tell who is really Hall of Fame worthy as opposed to a career 250 HR guy w/o the juice who got to 500 HRs by juicing.
4. Random Cheating Versus PED Use – There have always been the periodic cheaters with illegal pitches, corked bats, etc. However, these were few and far between while steroids were rampant in the game. As more comes out about the era I am becoming more and more convinced Ken Caminiti’s estimate that 60% of players were using is right.
5 . Kids Who Juiced b/c They Saw the Big Leaguers Do It – There is the case of Taylor Hooten, a Texas high school baseball player who juiced. When the emotional ups and downs of the drugs caught up with him he committed suicide. That’s an extreme case but lots of kids had career ending elbow, shoulder and knee injuries because they juiced and their bodies couldn’t handle the additional muscle mass (this was an issue for big leaguers too).
I could go on and on but I think the steriod/PED era is a massive stain on the game of baseball. Frankly it has done far more damage to the game than Pete Rose betting on baseball. He was one player who broke the rules and paid the consequences. The steriods era is one where we will constantly question the veracity and worthiness of the performance of the players from it.
by millsy on Feb 11, 2011 10:45 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
A lot of this is true, until the last paragraph, which I'd argue with
But it’s a whole era of baseball.* What do we do, throw it out? We don’t throw other tainted eras out. As Chris Rock says, Babe Ruth hit 714 affirmative action home runs. It was what it was. But Pete Rose broke the one rule that baseball had made sacrosanct. You can argue with whether it should be (I think it should), but that makes no difference, it was, and he knew it was. There was no lifetime suspension (or any penalty at all) in place for PED use.
*And, not for nothing, an era that also saw so many other changes – the height of the mound, strike zone, smaller stadiums, etc – that we really can’t determine the effect of the drugs. Not to mention, both offense and defense were using.
You Can't Throw It Out
I almost never think of Pete Rose but I think of
steroids everytime I see a player with muscles that are too big or a player whose skills mysteriously disappear (I think Oliver Perez’s FB was probably juice related).
And Steroids and HGH are illegal w/o a prescription and none of had one.
In my mind steroids and PEDs were a systematic perversion of the game encouraged by the Commissioner and Players Union to drive up revenue. We know that one player died from PEDs (the middle reliever from the Orioles) and I’s bet money it was related to Darryl Kyle’s death.
I think Pete Rose is a scumbag who got what he deserved. However I believe steroids and HGH are a black mark on the game up there with the color line , the 1981 and 1994 strikes and the Black Sox scandal.
I know lots of people loved watching the HRs during this era but it is a stained legacy the game will deal with for a long time. And everytime we will think it is behind us there will be a questionable HoFer where it comes up or baseball’s Lyle Alzado who dies from an illness caused by steroids abuse.
by millsy on Feb 12, 2011 8:03 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
i probably am making too little of a deal regarding steroids
but at the same time, i still dont care. the biggest issue is the players health. the fact that the players union, whose number 1 priority should be protecting their members’ health, was fighting to make it easier to take steroids, means players werent all that concerned about it. maybe it means i am insensitive (probably) but i care less about baseball players health then they do. thats just me.
so regarding your points:
1) agreed
2) dont care
3) couldnt care less
4) dont care
5) banning roids in baseball will not stop any high school kids from taking PEDs. youd do more good (but still not much of any) by banning WWE.
so yes, steroids are bad and should not be in baseball. its good that they finally have enforcement and serious consequences for guys who get caught using PEDs. but compared to betting on baseball its not even an issue.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
by kendynamo on Feb 12, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I Think They Are Equally As Bad For Different Reasons
Rose is a scumbag who violated a serious rule but he has been punished.
What still appalls me about the steroids era was the willful disregard of players health by Bud Selig and Don Fehr in pursuit of money. Let’s face it at best MLB and the players union ignored what was going and at worst tacitly encouraged it.
And yet there have been no consequences for either of them yet.
I keep thinking about Lyle Alzado, the late Oakland Raiders player, whose death from steroids related tumors forced the NFL to clean up its act. Baseball’s Lyle Alzado is coming sometime in that not too distant future.
by millsy on Feb 12, 2011 9:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
You honestly don't care about unnatural competitive advantages?
Save Jenrry Mejia!
by Ogre39666 on Feb 13, 2011 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
about as much as i care about corked bats and spitballs
so no, i dont really care.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
So if someone sneaked an extra ace into his hand to get the royal flush when you had 4 aces
you wouldn’t mind?
Save Jenrry Mejia!
thats not really the same thing as steroids in MLB
1) i’m watching baseball. if im watching poker and someone cheats, i dont care
2) that example is more like if im watching a game and the mets are winning and then the official score keeper gives the opposing team an extra 3 runs so that they are in the lead and then the ump calls the game. that to me is not close to PED use in MLB.
to get a good poker analysis, it would be like if in the official rules no one was allowed to drink caffeine, but lots of players did it anyway and no one got punished for breaking this rule, even if some players played better when they were drinking soda.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
Wow That's Cynical
You don’t care if people cheat at sports, cards, etc. Why even have rules?
its the degree of cheating that makes the difference.
i do care (up to a point) if its serious cheating. i dont get why people get apoplectic about PEDs. its not that big of a deal. everyone turned a blind eye and some people got an advantage. the players and owners both should have done more to enforce testing. they didnt. now they do. im way over the whole thing. just like im over greenies or when people use spit balls and corked bats. its just not a big deal.
and yes, that is probably cynical. thats an accurate description of my attitude towards professional sports.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
Here's what I don't get about all sides of this argument
And if I’m misquoting anyone’s views, apologies in advance and please correct me. On the one hand, I see arguments based in the idea that there had been a bright line rule against betting on baseball for 50+ years before Rose came into the game, and longer before the bets in question were made. I think this view tends to elevate betting over PED use, largely because of this bright line rule, but also, if I’m reading between the lines correctly, in the view that the media has overdone the PED thing (which I believe is true). On the other hand, I see an argument that while Rose should suffer the consequences that he did but that PED use was very bad for a number of reasons, including negative health effects, peer pressure to conform, and an uneven playing field. What I see in neither argument is the following point: unless betting actually led to a different decision-making process (as it did with the Black Sox), there was a minimal on-field effect. I think that the bright-line rule against betting on baseball, as established by Landis, included a component of perversion of the game as played. Looking at it historically, baseball was fighting for its life—its ability to exist—in the wake of the Black Sox scandal, not because a player made bets, but because theit association with gamblers caused them to try to throw an important game. Mischaracterizing the Back Sox scandal is a convenient means to create a bright-line rule, but the creation of that rule fails in at least one significant respect.
I think the better false equivalency is that of elevating betting to the level of PEDs, scuffing balls, corking bats etc., which, regardless of effect, had the express intent of changing what happened on the field. While I agree with the idea that folks have overblown the PED issue, why not similar charges against Rose? In comparing him to the then-established rule, people have glossed over the idea that what he did was differentiable from those that causes the genesis of the bright-line rule. So his actions were fuzzy, if you want to get legalistic about it. While PEDs were not strictly speaking illegal, their use was also in a grey area between acts that were clearly verboten—throwing the World Series—and acts that were clearly allowed, such as betting on some other sport in Vegas at a legal book. In terms of sportsmanship, PEDs were recognized as being bad well before the modern era, even if there was no clear rule against them, no mandatory testing, etc. Not to mention that in many cases acquisition of these drugs was undertaken illegally, thus putting them on par with use of other illegal drugs that would get you in trouble with the league. If you want to tell me that if Bart Giammatti walked into a clubhouse and say guys shooting up, there would be no consequences, you’re crazy. Sure, it was a lot easier to get away with it and there was no mandatory punishment, but there’s a reason this stuff was not out in the open. The point is that while PED use was apparently fairly widespread and perhaps the league and owners looked the other way in the face of obvious evidence, it goes too far to say that they were completely within the rules. So with each existing in a grey area between clearly illegal and clearly illegal, how is the on-field/off-field distinction not applicable? Following that, perhaps betting is not as big a deal as PEDs?
So while I agree that people need to take the whole PEDs era with a grain of salt, why not Rose as well? I find it very strange that people are willing to give the benefit of legal doubt to PED users but not a guy who on-field was among the best of all-time, and whose actions were cabined to off-field activities. As for the deterrent effect argument, if you want deterrence, fine. But deterrence works for all things. Why not also deter PED use by a lifetime ban? Why not ban all established long-term PED users from the HoF and the game generally? Given that PED use is easier to scientifically prove through testing than gambling (unless you get the gambling on camera), this would make sense if you support the lifetime ban for Rose. I don’t think either behavior is laudable, that each should carry some punishment, and that PED use before clear rules were established should not lead to the type of apoplexy we’ve seen recently, but I feel that using this lens Rose has gotten a bad rap.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Feb 13, 2011 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
This reminded me of the quandary
“Is it illegal because it’s wrong, or is it wrong because it’s illegal.”
Save Jenrry Mejia!
Exactly
It’s a very good question, especially when things are not clearly illegal. There used to be a concept of “natural law,” which argued (to paraphrase and screw up the concept very badly in the process) that certain things were clearly wrong based on common morals shared by all humans. I would argue that while neither what Rose did or what the PED users did was strictly speaking verboten (really, in Rose’s cases not to the extent of a lifetime ban), but each smells very bad.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Feb 14, 2011 12:50 AM EST up reply actions
I think you're referring to 'mala in se'.
"And that's why anybody who invested with Lenny Dykstra should really call that number. Lawyers are standing by."
by BobbyV_Incognito on Feb 14, 2011 2:23 AM EST up reply actions
i think the slippery slope for gambling is far more dangerous than for PEDs
not to mention the fact that you brought up thats it’s easier to test for PEDs than for gambling. that’s why if you do actually prove a player gambled on baseball then it should be more severe.
i like how you framed both crimes in the spectrum of harm they cause to baseball, but personally i think the punishments are appropriate for the crimes as they are now.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
Thanks, I guess I think harm to the game is the point
I don’t like slippery slope arguments as a general matter, but I agree that the true danger of association with gamblers is that a player might get himself into a position where he realizes that he can make money by on-field decisions or will get himself so in hock that he can be forced to do the same. In this vein I feel that gambling at legal establishments would be marginally more acceptable than gambling via illegal bookies based on the harm to the game example, and the latter case of bad incentives. No Vegas casino book is going to encourage a player to throw a game, but a bookie just might (and in the past at least one has). In any event I see Rose as having been punished based on a precedent that is differentiable because no solid evidence has come out, as far as I know, that suggests that Rose either threw a game or that his gambling affected the way he played or managed. I guess I think that’s he done enough “time,” so to speak, based on the actions in question.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Feb 14, 2011 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
You said you didn't care about unnatural competitive advantages.
I outlined an unnatural competitive advantage. It sounds like you just don’t care as long as you’re not directly involved.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
by Ogre39666 on Feb 13, 2011 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
in baseball
i said i didnt care about unnatural competitive advantages in baseball. then you outlined a different scenario involving poker that had nothing to do with PEDs in baseball. then i qualified by not caring by saying i dont care up to a point.
now it appears youre trying to ensnare me in some semantic trap to prove, well i’m not exactly sure. to prove that i care less about cheating in poker when i’m playing than when i’m not playing? guess you got me.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
So because the unnatural competitive advantage in related to baseball, you don't care, but if it's related to anything else you do?
I only used poker because it was the first example that was simple and easy to outline.
How about this: A player finds a metal alloy that has the same effect on a baseball as aluminum (faster swing, and the ball going farther). However, unlike aluminum, it sounds like it’s made of wood when he hits the ball. This would be an unnatural competitive advantage. Since it’s an unnatural competitive advantage and it relates to baseball, you wouldn’t care?
Save Jenrry Mejia!
if you're assuming i want players to cheat
ie, use PEDs or corked bats, then you are mistaken.
do i want the rules followed and punishment meted out when there are transgressions? yes. am i going to get worked up about it? depends on the situation. GENERALLY, however, no i dont care. i dont know how late into the night you stay up fretting about players putting vasoline under their brims but i tend not to worry about it.
the whole point that you keep getting away from is my opinion that betting on baseball far worse than PEDs. so does MLB, hence the difference in penalties.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
I guess my question is why you think that betting is worse than PEDs
Besides the slippery slope argument you outline, I haven’t seen an argument for actual harm (if I missed a post, apologies). And I think we all agree that throwing a game, passing tips to gamblers, or changing game strategy to win a single game in a manner that could jeopardize later games (such as overusing your best reliever so he needs a number of days of rest) should result in a ban, but besides perverse incentives is there another rationale? Sorry if this comes off the wrong way, but this position on gambling sounds very similar to some MSM overreactions to PEDs.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Feb 14, 2011 1:06 AM EST up reply actions
slippery slope is pretty much it
that and the having difficulty proving bookie betting. PEDs are bad. as are spitballs etc. we’ve seen the worst case scenarios for both of those problems and life goes on. if players think theres room to bet on baseball as long as their betting on their team to win, it can very quickly lead to the total annihilation of the league. deterring players from betting on baseball is much more important from deterring them from taking HGH or corking a bat, though all of them should be discouraged.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you to change you opinion or anything.
I’m just trying to grasp something you said that struck me as strange. Not to get to personal, but I just found it odd that one could be a big enough baseball fan to comment on a Mets blog, but not care very much about “unnatural competitive advantages” is all. So please, don’t take any of this the wrong way. I’m not trying to “get” you. I’m just trying to draw out the reasoning for your nonchalant attitude about the subject matter.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
.
the whole point that you keep getting away from is my opinion that betting on baseball far worse than PEDs. so does MLB, hence the difference in penalties.
They say PED’s are wrong (hence the suspensions). You say “couldn’t care less” wrt everything but players health.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
right, semantics again
you realize ‘couldnt care less’ is an expression right? i didnt think my position required so much nuance to be understood but we’re obviously different kinds of fans.
anyway, we were discussing the topic generally. players getting slight unnatural advantages due to “cheating” is not a big deal to me. the cheaters will be caught and punished and the game will go on. if anything its an interesting anecdote in the games history. the only thing that makes it different is PEDs can be harmful to players health. otherwise, a little bit of cheating is not going to destroy professional baseball. gambling on baseball by players will.
i’d explain more about what i meant about not caring about PEDs or corked bats etc but if you still dont understand now im afraid i dont care about that either.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
I think the flipside of this argument is the pine tar incident
Even though George Brett was in violation of a published, established rule of baseball, it was a violation that didn’t affect the outcome of the at bat. A technical violation only, IMO. Not that I’m trying to say that too much pine tar is the equivalent of PEDs or what Rose did, I think that the support for Brett being awarded his home run is primarily in recognition of the fact that what he did didn’t affect a game outcome, except when the umps got legalistic about it.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Feb 14, 2011 1:01 AM EST up reply actions
thank you millsy
well said. well said.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
:(
I find Pete Rose the saddest case in all of baseball. He’s clearly one of the best, but he went out and screwed everything up for himself. Its just sad.
"go watch another episode of dahrma and greg you butt nutt"
-lohaus#54
The fan formely known as 0(+> (pronounced MetFanWithaPlan)
He has no one to blame but himself.
And, he was seemingly kinda a douche, even before the betting, so…
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 13, 2011 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
Whether you agree with it or not
Every clubhouse has a sign saying that gambling on baseball is illegal. Rose knew and did it anyway. As far as the Bonds argument about why he used PED, I think it was for the greater glory of Barry Bonds. And Pete Rose did things for the greater glory of Pete Rose. These included (for both Bonds and Rose) : 1) having great numbers; AND 2) winning. Rose was a major league a-hole. He had a major cow when his hit streak ended because Gene Garber, the Atlanta pitcher he faced in last game, had the audacity to actually try to get him (Rose) out, rather than give him a fat one over the plate. Yes, I saw Rose play. And I have never understood why he has so much sympathy (especially from my generation) for something he did knowingly with eyes wide open.
What's the score, boys?
What did Bugs Bunny do?
What's with the Carrot League baseball today?
by StorkFan on Feb 13, 2011 9:22 AM EST reply actions 2 recs

by 



























