If Pete Rose is banned, so should McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and on...

[HardWorkingDem]

I think it is absolute bullshit that Pete Rose is still banned from baseball when those who have used steroids are still allowed in the game. It's an absolute farce.

The stats of the steroid users should be null, void and not even counted.

[KamaAina]

1. Popcorn! Git yer popcorn right here!

:popcorn:

P.S. Rose bet on his own team. If he gets in the HOF, so should Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[CBGLuthier]

2. Rose should be in the hall with a big note explaining his shame

But the juicers do not belong and never will.

[LynneSin]

3. +1 to the infinity!!

Seriously.

The use of steroids have had more negative impact on the game then 1000 Pete Roses.

[rurallib]

4. don't forget Babe Ruth - he used an illegal substance

alcohol and lots of it.

[jobycom]

6. He probably used steroids, too.

PEDs were invented during WW I, and the mentality then through the 70s was that science could make people better than nature. Think Captain America, and remember that was during the Babe Ruth era. I'd be more surprised if he wasn't using whatever was available then than if he was.

[jobycom]

5. Maybe. Different cases. Rose should never be allowed back in.

People on steroids are cheating to win, like a pitcher sanding a ball or a batter corking the bat. You still have a game, you still know that the product you see on the field isn't fixed before it starts. With the Black Sox scandal, fans didn't know if the game was real. Maybe it was a game, maybe it was just a script players were following. If you can't trust that the game is real, you have no reason to watch. It becomes pro wrestling.

The two transgressions are not related. Not close, not even in the same realm of argument. Rose violated the number one rule of baseball, and kicked it right in the nuts. He revived its oldest and darkest sin. He should have the decency to never step near a baseball field or mention anything about baseball again. Not that he has any decency.

The roids argument is open. My opinion is that if you keep Bonds and McGwire out, then don't let anyone in who has played in the last 20 years. You have no way of knowing. The few people who were clean were facing pitchers and batters who weren't. Eventually, as in cycling or track and field, if you weren't juicing, you had no chance, so they all did it. I don't buy a single one who claims they didn't. I'm sure that means I'm unfairly blaming a couple, but I guarantee you I'm wrong about fewer people than who claim that only those who got caught are juicing.

And for perspective, Pete Rose was probably juicing, too. He already admitted he took uppers. Tom House has said that when he was playing in the 60s and 70s, everyone was using any enhancement drug they could find. He said the saying back then was you didn't get beaten, you got out-milligrammed. So all the people whining about Hank Aaron's record and such have to come to grips with the probability that Aaron was using whatever he could find, too. Why do think Roger Maris's hair fell out in clumps in his home run chase? Maris's jump in home runs for that one season is bigger than Bonds's.

I'm more interested in getting steroids out of the game to protect our youngtsers than keeping Bonds out of the Hall. If they ban the players who used them, then they should just ban the whole damn generation, or they won't be sure steroid users are in. I don't care one way or the other--steroids will define this era, no matter what the HoF sayd.

But the moment they let Pete Rose back in, I'll never watch another game. What he did made the game not a game.

[MrCoffee]

8. Hear hear!!!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[JonLP24]

11. Great argument

[HardWorkingDem]

12. Disagree...

He bet on games AFTER he was retired from PLAYING. Not only that, he was never accused of throwing games, but instead of betting on games to win.

He did not take substances that altered him for permanent. And unlike amphetamines, the steroids continued to change the person and make them artificially more effective.

These guys have put a tarnish on baseball that will remain unless ALL of them are banned.

[MrCoffee]

15. Rose himself said he bet on games as a player and a manager...after denying it outright for years

[HardWorkingDem]

17. I stand corrected, thanks...

but he never admitted to bet to lose did he? Or admit he did anything to lose a game to win a bet?

[JonLP24]

18. Here is an article from the time

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-dowd031407
By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports
March 14, 2007

Jeff Passan
Yahoo! Sports
The truth with Pete Rose never really has been the truth. It's more a malleable set of claims to further a self-serving agenda.

So when investigator John M. Dowd, the man who brought down Rose with the damning 1989 report that proved he did bet on baseball, heard Rose claiming Wednesday on ESPN Radio that he bet "every night" on the Cincinnati Reds teams he managed, one thought crept forward.

It's just another lie.

"He did not always bet to win," Dowd said from his Virginia home. "And when he didn't bet on the Reds, he sent a signal to the bookmakers to bet to lose.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=215x46705

I'd check out Awsi Dooger's comments as he knows a lot about sports gambling. (I'm currently trying to find another post he made on the topic)

Awsi Dooger (1000+ posts)
1. Dowd's remark is even more idiotic than Rose's

"And when he didn't bet on the Reds, he sent a signal to the bookmakers to bet to lose."

That's simply rank ignorance. The reason bookmakers take bets is they don't believe you can pick winners, not consistently enough to overcome the vigorish. I can just imagine a bookmaker saying, "hey, Pete didn't bet on the Reds tonight. Let's put a bundle on the other side!"

Actually it's very typical of writers and broadcasters who do reports that focus on gambling. Invariably they botch major aspects, simply because they have no background and guess wrong.

Baseball in particular is very difficult to forecast. A big favorite is 2/1, which is the equivalent of a 4 point favorite in a football game. The edges are slight and one swing or error can change the outcome in a flash, so no bookie is going to be overly impressed who you bet on or against, even if it's a big league manager who theoretically can maneuver to impact the outcome.

Rose's statement indicates he's a fool or a liar or both. I've been around baseball bettors for more than 20 years and no one bets the same team every day, not unless they are on a winning streak. It's a zig zag sport, with sharp bettors supporting then opposing a given team depending on pitching matchups and situational influence. Why should Rose, who knew gambling, be any different? For one thing, in baseball betting there's no pointspread to bail you out. It's strictly winner and loser and the best teams lose 60 or more times. Betting on your team every game makes zero sense.

I was in Las Vegas sportsbooks today, looking at the NCAA tournament lines. The sportsbook personnel and bettors in the books were ridiculing Rose today after hearing of his remarks, realizing it had no hint of logic or truth.

[MrCoffee]

19. John Dowd thinks he did, but he couldn't prove it

Personally, I trust Dowd's gut more than Rose's mouth.

[LynneSin]

23. "...after denying it outright for years". Funny you should mention that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Palmeiro#Steroids

Former Rangers teammate José Canseco identified Palmeiro as a fellow steroid user in his 2005 book, Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits & How Baseball Got Big, and claimed he personally injected Palmeiro with steroids. On March 17, 2005, Palmeiro appeared at a Congressional hearing about steroids in baseball and, while under oath, denied ever using steroids and stated, "Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids, period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never."
_______________________________________________

Every single one of those celebrity juiceheads did the SAME EXACT THING - they denied the accusations year after year after year. You know why they aren't being punished like Pete Rose it's simple - the owners never made any money off of Pete Rose's gambling but they made MILLIONS off of the juiceheads. When those players were juicing, especially McGwire and Sosa - they were packing the stands and making the owners filthy rich. Money talks, bullshit walks.

And someone commented about how gambling would make the fans question the authenticity of the game. Well steroids did the same. Now, anytime some realitively unknown player starts power hitting people start questioning 'Is he using'. Now we have astericks in the the record books because the person that hit more homeruns in a season and more homeruns in a career are held by people who used performance enhancers to get to those goals. Say what you will about Rose, he was not a juicer - hell one look at his body showed he wasn't using it (he was not very muscular).

[MrCoffee]

27. And Bud Selig will have a special place in hell for ignoring the 'roid years

None of that changes the fact that Pete Rose is and forevermore should be banned from baseball.

[LynneSin]

29. Then the juiceheads should be banned too

They did way more harm to the game not just because their juicing changed the outcome of the game but because it changed the overall game period. Kids believed in people like Sosa, McGwire, Canseco, Clemens and these other juiced stars - they worshiped them as baseball heros. And it turned out they were cheating the game for that hero status.

Check the record books - there are no * next to any record that Pete Rose earned - he earned them all fairly. But all those records the juicers owned are going to be * because how can you call Barry Bonds the homerun king when Hank Aaron got his without the juice but Bobby used it.

[MrCoffee]

30. I'm all for *s for the roid boys, and Charley Hustler can keep his records

and his lifetime ban.

[pitohui]

20. a very good post by jobycom

the class of DU, as always

you said it perfectly!

[dr.strangelove]

7. I'm not sure what one has to do with the other

Steroid users were cheating, improving performance. Its a clear rule violating and bothers me on a personal level. I will never want to see one of those players in the Hall of Fame and I doubt I would "forgive" one of them enough to support them in any other endeavor. Cheating is just something I find so distasteful. That said, its a very different "crime" than gambling on a game that you are playing in (or managing). The later carries the implicit benefit of pre-determining the outcome of the game. I certainly see a difference between the egregiousness of the two offenses. If Roger Clemens on steroids was pitching to Rafael Palmiero on steroids, I fail to see how its as bad as throwing a game or trying to keep the score within a certain spread. For cheating by doing steroids, I don't think a lifetime ban is the correct punishment. On the gambling front, any person who has a financial incentive to lose a game or keep a game within a certain score should be banned. To me, the gambling offense is a worse offense. No question both deserve punishment, but not the same punishment.

[LynneSin]

10. I think they both deserve the same punishment because they both affect the outcome of the game

How many games were won because McGwire or Sosa or Canseco were pumped up on steroids and hitting all those homeruns.

It's a real shame because I remember all the 'excitement' generated by the homerun race to see who might break Roger Maris 61 homeruns in a season. Personally I think Maris still holds that record and Hank Aaron is still the homerun king.

Pete Rose screwed up with the gambling but he never gave less than 110% in becoming the all-time hits leader. The gambling really only affected Rose as a manager.

[HardWorkingDem]

13. From my knowledge....Rose never bet on games to lose..or while as non-manager..

But I could be wrong.

I would certainly agree if Rose had admitted to betting on games to lose or actively tried to lose a game to win money.

And here's a contrast - how is it really different betting on a game for financial gain, than a player taking illegal substances to possible increase his financial worth after being able to put up huge statistical numbers?

Read the current Bonds profile in the New Yorker....one of the alleged reasons Bonds took steroids was just that....

[LynneSin]

26. As far as they could prove it was only during his managing career

although for a few years he was a player manager.

I just think once he retired as a player, Rose was bored as a manager. Honestly, I'm a serious Reds fan and the teams he managed during that time weren't particularly good or memorable. I think they were usually 2nd or 3rd place in the league. Even without the gambling Rose was just a shitty manager and the players during those years did not speak highly of him.

I had a close friend whose father went thru gambling addiction and one thing I can see as a root cause with both the father and Pete Rose - that's boredom. After my friend's father retired, he and his wife retired near AC and gambling was their only form of entertainment. I think after Rose retired as a regular player, he was just bored out of his skull as a manager. It's a shame he did it.

[MrCoffee]

9. Pete Rose shouldn't even be allowed to enter the HoF with paid admission.

[jobycom]

34. Amen. nt

[HardWorkingDem]

14. Financial aspects of gambling vs sterioids...

Some folks are pointing out the comparison of these two offenses - gambling and steroids - is like comparing apples to oranges. I beg to differ.

In the new New Yorker there is a profile of Bonds and in the profile it is alleged one of the reasons Bonds took steroids was for financial gain. This is similar to gambling - though I'd bet one of the reasons Rose really gambled was more out of the thrill than hopes for lasting financial game.

My point is, gambling on games after retiring from playing them is vastly lower than taking illegal substances to allow one to run faster, hit harder, heal quicker and falsely improve one's abilities.

[JonLP24]

16. With Rose

and gambling, I consider it addiction (so do drug & alcohol counselors) when it causes consequences in their personal life(like drugs & alcohol). In those cases, gambling isn't about winning or losing but the thrill of the game. Gambling and during that time after you place a bet and before the outcome, there is a "rush". That is what causes them to gamble over-and-over to experience the "rush".

I think what would of helped Pete Rose the person is admitted he had a problem and got himself into treatment. Not saying that would of helped his HOF candidacy but himself as a person. But like any other addictions, it is hard to quit.

[LynneSin]

21. And you wouldn't call using steriods an addiction?

:shrug:

[JonLP24]

24. I'm sure you could

There is a difference between using a drug and being addicted to it. Like many people can gamble and not develop an addiction.

I'm not sure where you draw that line when it comes to baseball players. Like with any addiction, the general line is if it causes consequences in your personal life so I guess someone like Manny Ramirez who got suspended for a steroid type of drug (fertility drug in his case) could be considered an addict.

I'm much more familiar with typical drugs, alcohol, and gambling addiction than steroids so I'm not really sure because in those 3 cases, they're doing for a high, when in steroids they seem to be using to be a better player.

[LynneSin]

28. I think there is a serious high with steroid addiction but it's more mental than physical

Probably similar to the high you might get with gambling.

Outside of your body turning to flab, I don't think there is any physical harm with going cold turkey on steriods - same thing with gambling. Compare that to alcohol, crack or other hardcore drug addiction - if you try to quit your body might get seriously harmed. But with steroids and gambling there is a mental addiction where it's the thrill of a big gambling win or the thrill of getting the big win in the game - it's an addiction.

[JonLP24]

31. I just don't know

enough about steroids to make a qualified judgment one way or the other. I'm think there are some misunderstandings in this sub-thread as I misunderstood the sub-thread starter's post. I thought he was talking about gambling for financial gain(which is reason people will gamble but not for those addicted). I personally think Rose should be let in because I don't consider addiction a moral failing, even though it the "darkest sin".

However I think Rose denying it all these years really doesn't help him at all. So those that want a lifetime ban, I don't disagree very strongly.

[LynneSin]

22. It's definately a financial reason for why we let the steroids thing slide...

because the owners made a SHITLOAD of money off of those juiced players. When Sosa and McGwire were chasing Maris' record, their teams were selling out the house like crazy.

I highly doubt that the owners of the Cincinnati Reds made any money off of Pete Rose's gambling, probably why he's getting the harsher punishment.

[Broken_Hero]

25. Let them all in, :)

as long as they let me in as the Ultimate Seattle Mariner fan.

:hide:

[flvegan]

32. Why?

While I agree that it's highly likely that Bonds, et al used anabolics to improve their game to an obvious advantage to them I don't know that banning them for using is the ideal. Do we start banning anyone that uses some sort of performance enhancer? IIRC, McGwire was using a perfectly legal "buy it at GNC" steroid "precursor" not banned by the league or anyone else at the time.

If we're going to ban them because they violate league rules, then okay. Fair enough. If it's because they used performance enhancers to gain an advantage, I find that close to hilarious.

[HardWorkingDem]

33. I sincerely believe McGwire used illegal sterioids and not just legal OTC items...

And I think this is clear by his avoidance of the issue before congress and elsewhere.

[old mark]

35. I saw Pete in person when he was with the Phillies...he was certainly not

a "natural athlete", but he worked his ass off and was a very valuable player for a lot of years.

I'm still apalled that he did something so stupid, but he did and he admitted it...Pete Rose used to be held up as an inspiration to kids for all his hard work and constant practice and training...then he just blew it.

I agree the 'roid gang should be thrown out, too...it seemed like a lot of people knew they were doing it before they ever owned up to it...

mark