Quote:
Originally Posted by Déjà Bru
I get the cartoonist's intent and I agree with it to some extent. However, the distinction is that Pete Rose bet on his own team while he was on it, be it to win or lose. (He maintains that he never wagered on losses).
|
Insofar as MLB's rules are considered, it does not matter at all whether Rose bet on his own team or the opponent. Both are considered equal violations, with severe punishment. The only distinction in terms of punishment is between those who are connected to the game being bet upon and those who are not.
Major League Rule 21
(d) GAMBLING.
(1) 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 no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.
(2) 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.
These rules are very clear. And they are enforced, even against star players, as the Rose matter amply demonstrates. Strong rules with no leeway or exceptions, and which are enforced, likely do much to keep gambling from affecting the on-the-field game.