RI something Pete Rose

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by uruguru

If Pete Rose consistently didn't bet on Mario Soto's games, that tells me that Soto was having a bad year and, despite being a compulsive gambler, Rose wasn't stupid.

This argument IMO misses the larger point. By not betting on Soto when Soto was off his game, Rose was providing his bookie (and other gambling contacts) with information that they should not have had available to them. This is also against the rules, and Pete knew that, too.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

This argument IMO misses the larger point. By not betting on Soto when Soto was off his game, Rose was providing his bookie (and other gambling contacts) with information that they should not have had available to them. This is also against the rules, and Pete knew that, too.

#1 I specifically address why that's a bad argument in the next paragraph. The "larger point", as you call it.

#2 There is literally no evidence that this was the intent. Zero. This is all speculation made for the purpose to exaggerate the case against Rose.

Considering that Soto was a mediocre pitcher during this year, the most straightforward explanation was that Rose wasn't going to make a bad bet. Just because you are a compulsive gambler doesn't mean you are willing to make bad bets.

And yes, no one is arguing that it wasn't against the rules.

The real "larger point" is that all of the innuendo in the world cannot make your point. It's been almost 40 years. Every game that Rose bet or didn't bet on has been examined in detail by people who desperately want to prove he fixed games. Guess what? They never found any evidence of that. If they had, you would be copy-pasting it here verbatim.

But you can't, so all you can do is toss out innuendo and hope that sounds convincing.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by uruguru

#2 There is literally no evidence that this was the intent. Zero. This is all speculation made for the purpose to exaggerate the case against Rose.

.

Prove that wasn't the intent.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Prove that wasn't the intent.

Thanks for the making the point. People are so eager to make their case against Rose that they expect you to prove a negative in his defense.

[Amazin69]

Oh, Fahrfegneugen!

Originally Posted by uruguru

#1 I specifically address why that's a bad argument in the next paragraph. The "larger point", as you call it.

No, you don't address it. You just argue the converse and hypothesize that others would be hypocrites if that were the case. Pure straw-man. Rumpelstiltskin would be proud.

#2 There is literally no evidence that this was the intent. Zero. This is all speculation made for the purpose to exaggerate the case against Rose.

"Intent" is irrelevant.
The issue is the danger that this behavior creates.
Which is why it's against the rules.
Which Rose knew.
And yet, Rose deliberately broke the rules
Hence the ban.

And yes, no one is arguing that it wasn't against the rules.

So what are you on about, then? Pete knew the rules, Pete broke the rules, Pete was banned, Pete's dead. What's the point?

The real "larger point" is that all of the innuendo in the world cannot make your point. It's been almost 40 years. Every game that Rose bet or didn't bet on has been examined in detail by people who desperately want to prove he fixed games. Guess what? They never found any evidence of that. If they had, you would be copy-pasting it here verbatim.

I don't even see anybody arguing about whether or not he fixed games. He wasn't banned for fixing, he was banned for violating the rules about betting on games.

Whether or not he was a fixer is as irrelevant to the argument as to whether his bowl cut made him look stupid, whether the polyester uniforms made him look fat or whether his cheap shots on Ray Fosse and Bud Harrelson made him a dirty player.

None of that has the slightest relevance to why Rose was banned, whether the ban should have been listed or whether he should be in the Hall. Like, seriously.

But you can't, so all you can do is toss out innuendo and hope that sounds convincing.

And all you seem to be doing is fulminating about irrelevancies and trying to smear others. Go find another windmill to tilt at, please.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Thanks for the making the point. People are so eager to make their case against Rose that they expect you to prove a negative in his defense.

What pot induced point are you trying to make here?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

If Pete Rose consistently didn't bet on Mario Soto's games, that tells me that Soto was having a bad year and, despite being a compulsive gambler, Rose wasn't stupid.

I have zero confidence that if Pete had indeed bet on Soto's games that any of his critics would suddenly turn around and say, "oh, he bet indiscriminately so now I think it's ok".

It's really just thrown out as a bad-faith canard to suggest that Rose was tipping off to other people which doesn't make any sense. If he was going to do that, he wouldn't do that with the same mediocre pitcher every time because then that pattern would be indistinguishable from Pete just not wanting to make a bad bet. Which is almost certainly what it was.

Rose didn't throw games like the Black Sox, or Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker. Rose didn't cheat like the multitude of players who secretly took steroids (Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc) and basically took a massive dump on the game's statistical record. Or like the 2017 Astros. He bet on his team to win, which is unsurprising given his competitiveness.

It's not right, but it's not surprising. And it's certainly worthy of a suspension.

But the animosity towards Rose was baked in because, for about 10 years, what he did was the worst sin in baseball. So when all of the far greater sins started occurring, people were just too emotionally invested in the "Rose is terrible" mantra to step back and recalibrate their opinion in the context of what happened in the 90s which was far, far worse. There are people who honestly believe that Rose betting to win is worse than the rampant cheating that happened in the 90s. It boggles the mind

lmao no betting on and possibly throwing games was and always will be the worst sin


BUT YOU CANT PROOOOOOOVE THE THREW GAMES HE JUST HAD A WORSE RECORD ON THE GAMES HE DIDNT BET ON SOMEHOOOOOOOW

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by uruguru

The real "larger point" is that all of the innuendo in the world cannot make your point. It's been almost 40 years. Every game that Rose bet or didn't bet on has been examined in detail by people who desperately want to prove he fixed games.

And that is entirely irrelevant to the rule involved. It does not matter whether he bet on his own team to win or lose. It's completely immaterial. People keep looking for nuance or loopholes in a rule that has neither. From the 1986 Major League Rules:

MLR 21

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. 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.

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.

There is no ambiguity in the above. There is no wiggle room, no shades-of-grey. The rule is about as black-and-white as it's possible to get.

Bet on someone else's team and you're gone for a year. Bet on your own team and you're gone permanently. That's it.

Rose knew this rule yet stupidly broke it. The fault is entirely his own. If he had limited his betting to other teams he'd have been out for a year and probably would be in the Hall now. But he bet on his own team, got caught, and the axe fell.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

lmao no betting on and possibly throwing games was and always will be the worst sin

Thanks for demonstrating that there are people who think he might have thrown games. Someone earlier suggested that wasn't the case.


If you have evidence for Rose throwing games, present it. I mean, you won't because it doesn't exist. But on the remote chance that you are the guy who has it, go ahead.


Cheating on the field is far worse than what we know that Pete Rose did, or the innuendo of what you think he might have possibly done even though no one could establish that over three decades. If you disagree, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. I'm not really too concerned about the HOF because it's already lost so much credibility, but if it were up to me I would absolutely let Rose in before the flagrant steroid cheats.


But Pete Rose is a great player and no amount of pearl-clutching about him betting is going to change that. In light of the later blights on the game that went unpunished, the controversy surrounding Rose has only served to martyr him in the eyes of many fans.

BUT YOU CANT PROOOOOOOVE THE THREW GAMES HE JUST HAD A WORSE RECORD ON THE GAMES HE DIDNT BET ON SOMEHOOOOOOOW

I'm not sure you realize it, but you literally do this in every post you have with someone you disagree with. You put words in their mouth and then laugh as if they said it instead of you. It's both transparent and childish but hey, you do you..

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Rose knew this rule yet stupidly broke it. The fault is entirely his own. If he had limited his betting to other teams he'd have been out for a year and probably would be in the Hall now. But he bet on his own team, got caught, and the axe fell.

Just for the record, I am not arguing that he broke the rule. So we are in agreement about that.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

What pot induced point are you trying to make here?

Maybe there's confusion here. You asked me to prove that wasn't Rose's intent. In other words, you are asking me to prove a negative. That's simply not possible.

And when that negative proof involves reading the mind of someone (i.e their intent), then it has moved into the realm of absurdity.

Maybe not everyone realizes that you can't prove a negative. So now you know.

TL;DR Your question was invalid.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Maybe there's confusion here. You asked me to prove that wasn't Rose's intent. In other words, you are asking me to prove a negative. That's simply not possible.

And when that negative proof involves reading the mind of someone (i.e their intent), then it has moved into the realm of absurdity.

Maybe not everyone realizes that you can't prove a negative. So now you know.

TL;DR Your question was invalid.

When you ask for intent, you are always asking what was going on in the mind. You did the very same thing when you posed the challenge to prove he intended to help gamblers. So how in the world can you criticize others when your argument is thrown right back at you, dude?

That was my point.

It doesn't matter what intent was. What mattered was what the act was. It was banned to do what he did,. He did it. He knew the penalty. Cause he NEGOTIATED HIS EXILE. You don't plea bargain your execution reasoning maybe they will get rid of the death sentence later. You do it w/the hope to keep the ugly facts from getting out publicly. He went into the whole thing with open eyes. He knew he was guilty. Whether it was to feed his family, just for kicks or thumb his nose @ the major leagues. HE WAS GUILTY.

So stop trying to clean it up. You're trying to deny someone was an illegal drug dealer just because he pushed opioids for Pfizer & not the Crips. Pete Rose bet on baseball. PERIOD. He got what he knew was coming to him & nobody persecuted him.

[monkeyman576]

The question isn't if Rose was guilty, the question is if MLB has moral authority, which they don't.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

The question isn't if Rose was guilty, the question is if MLB has moral authority, which they don't.

Wait a minute........the owners of the league do not have the right to set guidelines on who is eligible to be hired into MLB??!??!??? That is the hill you are defending? That the boss can't say who his company hires & fires? Especially when the rules are agreed upon in a signed CBA w/the labor force?

Do you really what to take that position?

[monkeyman576]

They have a right to, but they haven't used that right in a fair and impartial way, which is the burden of an authoritative body. MLB has lost the trust of mlb fans when it comes to they way they handle punishment for a reason.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

They have a right to, but they haven't used that right in a fair and impartial way, which is the burden of an authoritative body. MLB has lost the trust of mlb fans when it comes to they way they handle punishment for a reason.

I'm unaware of any player/manager who bet on the game that went unpunished.

And again, this is the point you Rose apostles keep forgetting, Pete Rose plea bargained his banishment. So even if you were correct, and you are far from it, Pete Rose screwed Pete Rose.

[monkeyman576]

MLB has much more resources than Rose and is contiuously abusing it. If you want to defend MLB then you are entitled to. Rose is no saint, but MLB strongarmed Rose into a bad deal, and contiously igonores the feelings of the public when it comes to his reinstatement. Rose said he was wrong, MLB refuses to admit that they were wrong in banning Rose. MLB is on the wrong side of this PR war and on the wrong side of this ethical war.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

MLB has much more resources than Rose and is contiuously abusing it. If you want to defend MLB then you are entitled to. Rose is no saint, but MLB strongarmed Rose into a bad deal, and contiously igonores the feelings of the public when it comes to his reinstatement. Rose said he was wrong, MLB refuses to admit that they were wrong in banning Rose. MLB is on the wrong side of this PR war and on the wrong side of this ethical war.

Notice how you dodge when facts are presented?

Rose had lawyers w/him when he made the deal to walk away. He wasn't strong armed into anything. It was his ego that didn't want to admit the truth & be exposed. So he continued to fool his ignorant fans into thinking he never gambled on baseball or his team. And he didn't admit the truth for decades until he decided to get a book deal out of it. There is no reason for MLB to "admit" to any wrong since they were w/in their rights & had set this precedence back in 1921.

The unwillingness of members of the Rose cult to see any facts in Rose's malignant narcissistic actions towards himself & the game is stunning & disturbing. The man thought life would make an exception for him cause he was Pete frikkin' Rose. And he had you lemmings to continue to make him believe he was immune to what every other player must adhere to.

But the ironic thing is that in death, he may have done MLB his greatest service. He proved if you bet on your sport you can potentially take that mistake to your grave. It ain't worth it to the game. And it ain't worth it to yourself.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

MLB is on the wrong side of this PR war and on the wrong side of this ethical war.

Go read ML Rule 21. No exceptions, no ambiguities. Rose broke that cardinal rule. Rose is the one who threw ethics out the window. The moral failings are his and his alone. Your position is absurd.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Go read ML Rule 21. No exceptions, no ambiguities. Rose broke that cardinal rule. Rose is the one who threw ethics out the window. The moral failings are his and his alone. Your position is absurd.

He won't read it. The Rose cult doesn't like facts cutting into their feelings.