Someone explain to me how gambling is bad for baseball but Roids are good?

[LynneSin]

I'm just not getting it.

We're banning Pete Rose because of a crime committed almost 80 years ago in a time when Gambling as a whole was a national travesty done only by those associated with mafia-types.

But 80 years later THAT is the standard for what is the worst thing ever in baseball that deserves a lifetime punishment and yet every year we learn about today's so-called baseball heroes pumping themselves full of steroids in order to break new baseball records.

I'm just not getting it! To me, Steroids are ruining the game of baseball and yet we all gang up on Pete Rose because in 1919 baseball was almost destroyed by gambling? And remember, Rose was a manager when he was gambling. Most of his hits came while he was just a baseball player and didn't have the ability to impact the outcome of baseball. So shouldn't Pete Rose, the player, be in the Hall-of-Fame?

And if we're going to be such fricking purists then we better go into the record of every member of the Hall-of-Fame and clear out anyone who could tarnish such a 'pristine' institution including notorious thugs like Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb.

Let's not be hypocrites. Lifetime bans for gambling back in 1919 made sense because of the puritan ideologies towards a past-time committed by sinners. But with Lotteries available in almost every state and casinos opening up everywhere, gambling is not such a 'sin-against-humanity' crime as it is today.

I appreciate that Rose should not be allowed to ever be in a position in baseball where he could influence the game but the man should be allowed in the Hall-of-Fame.

This hypocrisy is why I can barely watch baseball today. At least every hit that Pete Rose got was from his very own skills and not from being pumped full of body-enhancing substances that could alter his playing skills.

[GOPisEvil]

1. Here's the problem with Pete. He bet on his own team.

No matter whether he bet on them to win or lose. Betting on your own team changes the way you manage, even if subconsciously. Let's say you've used a relief pitcher 2 days in a row, but you've got 10 large on tonight's game and you need to win. So, you bring out the relief pitcher and he blows his arm out. Your actions brought about by your bet have had a negative impact on the game as a whole.

For the record, I think anyone proven to have used steroids should have any official MLB records stricken from the books. However, proving the usage is next-to-impossible.

[kick-ass-bob]

2. I wish I could recommend this post.

People whine about "he never bet AGAINST his team" but by betting FOR his team SOMETIMES, that is a signal to bookies that even the manager doesn't think they will win. Was he player/manager at the time?

Bet for/against your own team, and you are gone.

Steroids has yet to be worked out - I'm sure that there will be real implications at some point.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. May I also add...

Even if you always bet on your team to win, the days in which you DON'T bet are just as telling and have a greater impact on how you manage than the days you DO bet on your team to win.

[LynneSin]

7. I agree, but he had 4000+ hits before he became Player/Manager

I'm not giving Pete another chance to be a manager or another position where he could influence the outcome of the game. But I'm thinking that we're a little hypocritical when you consider who is in the Hall-of-Fame now and the crimes & abuses they have done.

Pete Rose the player should be in there.

ANd yes, Roids abuse should wipe out any records gained by them. And obviously it's gaining records that makes one Hall-of-Fame worthy which means said player probably would never have the criteria to make it

[GOPisEvil]

8. My argument for both Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson is...

...posthumous election to the Hall. Their bans are for life. Once they're dead, then put them in. Or, if Pete ever gets reinstated, he goes in the Hall the next day. Pete fucked himself by maintaining, despite lots of evidence to the contrary, that he'd never bet on baseball. Then, when he wanted to sell his book, he comes out with the truth. If he'd admitted his transgression up front, he'd have been reinstated years ago. But, Pete is more popular now that he's banned than if he ever got elected. He'd cease to be a story if he ever got in. And, Pete is all about Pete.

[LynneSin]

9. I could live with that

And I agree that Shoeless Joe Jackson should be in there.

And I think Pete finally came out and admitted it a few years ago!

[StaggerLee]

3. There you go making sense again

:eyes:

:hi:

[StopTheMorans]

4. strawman, noone made that claim

[KitchenWitch]

6. Great argument!

I am with you on the whole steroids thing...much worse than gambling.

[flvegan]

10. If you ban pro athletes from the Hall or strike their records or even

toss them from the game, there won't be enough left to play. The use of performance enhancing drugs, from the real gear ('roids) to the pro-hormones that "act like" steroids, to IGF and growth hormone, right down to the Balco designer crap is so deeply entrenched, you'd have to start scouting down in the little leagues.

Not slamming baseball, football, boxing, wrestling...hell even track and field sports, tennis...it's all over the place. I imagine pro beach volleyball will be needing a testing program...

Edited to add: I'm not disagreeing with you, just making a point. I say let Pete into the Hall for his playing abilities.

[Orsino]

11. It's good in case the team is flying...

...over the Andes, crashes, and the survivors have to determine whom to eat first. Biceps good, testes bad.

[Shell Beau]

12. To me they are both bad for baseball. They may and do

effect the outcome of the game and that sucks.