ESPN: Pete Rose bet on the Reds as a player...

• Spock

  

  MontyBrunswick;1737190 wrote:So true. Tim Duncan is such an ass.

  I said "best athletes".....people like Jordan, Ali, olympic gold medalists, Tiger etc........ Duncan isnt in that catagory.
• BR1986FB

  Interesting comment was made on a national talk show today. One guy was on there bashing Rose and the host asked him "if Michael Jordan bet on the Bulls in the Finals against the Suns (or another team) would people be giving him nearly as much crap as Rose has been given?" Interesting and I don't think so.
• Token

  

  Spock;1736672 wrote:so let me get this straight, you can juice to the gills to pad the stats for years and that is OK but you cant bet on a few games?
  
  
  
  Go it.

  I have less of a problem with an athlete taking performance enhancing drugs then betting on his teams games.
• Token

  

  Spock;1737186 wrote:His bloated ego is also part of why he was so good. It's a character trait that all of the best athletes have.

  Confidence and being an asshole is not the same.
• like_that

  

  BR1986FB;1737301 wrote:Interesting comment was made on a national talk show today. One guy was on there bashing Rose and the host asked him "if Michael Jordan bet on the Bulls in the Finals against the Suns (or another team) would people be giving him nearly as much crap as Rose has been given?" Interesting and I don't think so.

  No, Jordan fans can't take MJ's penis out of their mouths to worry about that. Their counter argument would be "That just shows how much of a competitor he was! He KNEWWWW he was going to win and was confident on betting on himself! This is why nobody will every surpass Jordan... (blah blah blah same bs recycled shit i hear about him)."
  
  Jordan nut huggers are worse than LBJ nut huggers imo, especially since most of them were too young to even truly appreciate Jordan.
• Al Bundy

  BR1986FB;1737301 wrote:Interesting comment was made on a national talk show today. One guy was on there bashing Rose and the host asked him "if Michael Jordan bet on the Bulls in the Finals against the Suns (or another team) would people be giving him nearly as much crap as Rose has been given?" Interesting and I don't think so.

  I think baseball is always going to have a tougher stance because of the Black Sox history. It almost ruined the league. When football had their gambling problem in the early 60's, the players were just suspended a year, and things went back to normal. In basketball, Jordan was suspended for two years for his gambling, then things went back to normal. I think people are much tougher on Rose as opposed to Jordan because of how the respective leagues handled things. There was a long hearing for Rose that was covered nationally, and Jordan was permitted to quietly work out a deal.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  superman;1736873 wrote:It's too bad people don't look at Pete's gambling addiction like they do Hamilton's coke addiction.

  Hamilton has acknowledged his addiction and Pete lies about it. Therein lies the difference.
• superman

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1737321 wrote:Hamilton has acknowledged his addiction and Pete lies about it. Therein lies the difference.

  Hamilton got caught. If there was a blood test to prove gambling, Pete would acknowledge his issues too.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  superman;1737324 wrote:Hamilton got caught. If there was a blood test to prove gambling, Pete would acknowledge his issues too.

  I don't agree. Pete has been caught dead to rights from 1989 onward and has lied anyway. Most people don't get help for problems related to addiction until they're backed into a corner. In Pete's case, he stonewalls, conducts character assassination and portrays himself as a perpetual victim. Had he come clean when the heat was on, he would have gotten a second chance just like Hamilton.
• superman

  Hamilton has had five or six chances. If Pete was treated like Hamilton from the beginning, he would not need to get defensive and stonewall.
• superman

  Hamilton has had five or six chances. If Pete was treated like Hamilton from the beginning, he would not need to get defensive and stonewall.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  superman;1737408 wrote:Hamilton has had five or six chances. If Pete was treated like Hamilton from the beginning, he would not need to get defensive and stonewall.

  Pete has had about fifty million chances. Pete's investigation turned up evidence that from the get go that he bet on the Reds. He was presented this multiple times during MLB's investigation - he denied. Fay Vincent and the owners didn't want this to go as far as it did, so Pete was given many, many chances to admit to what they all had proof of - he denied.
  
  Hamilton's story is apples to oranges. But when he (Hamilton) is confronted with proof of his addiction (i.e. a positive drug test), he admits his problem and works on getting right. Pete has never done that. I appreciate the grips of addiction and the denial that comes with it. However in Pete's case, he has never been honest and in fact has smirched the reputation of many others in order to escape responsibility. I had the guy's poster on my wall as a kid, so I take no joy in this.
• superman

  Pete was attacked and vilified from day 1.
  Hamilton was coddled and babied from day 1.
  The different treatment is at least partially responsible for the different reactions.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  superman;1737429 wrote:Pete was attacked and vilified from day 1.
  Hamilton was coddled and babied from day 1.
  The different treatment is at least partially responsible for the different reactions.

  The defenders of Pete have always been outspoken, so you can say he's been coddled over the years. Look, I don't care about Hamilton's case here - that's for another day. Looking at Rose's situation is what I'm doing. You can't say "Let the murderer go since the rapist in the next state escaped". Pete has earned his situation for sure. I say it with a heavy heart because I was a Big Red Machine kid in the 1970s. Pete was far and away my favorite too.
• superman

  The original comment you felt the need to comment on involved Hamilton. Now that you have been proven wrong, you suddenly don't care about Hamilton?
  My comment had nothing to do with Pete's fans but rather the authorities in charge.
  The fact that you think Fay Vincent was the commissioner shows how clueless you are.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  superman;1737621 wrote:The original comment you felt the need to comment on involved Hamilton. Now that you have been proven wrong, you suddenly don't care about Hamilton?
  My comment had nothing to do with Pete's fans but rather the authorities in charge.
  The fact that you think Fay Vincent was the commissioner shows how clueless you are.

  I'm trying to have a discussion about Rose vs. Hamilton's case and you have to make it personal. Why?
  
  I don't think you're proving anything. You think Hamilton hasn't been treated as harshly as Rose. I think the two are incomparable. I was 19 years old when Pete got banished and I remember it well. I'm not confused about Fay Vincent either - I am aware he was not the commissioner when Rose signed his agreement. Bart Giamatti was the commissioner when Rose agreed to his lifetime banishment. However Fay Vincent led the investigation prior to and during the Down report. He also directed baseball's long-term attitude in not re-admitting Rose.
• superman

  Down report? Lol
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  superman;1737637 wrote:Down report? Lol

  Typo. Glad you enjoyed.
• superman

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1737671 wrote:Typo. Glad you enjoyed.

  The n and the d are so close to each other. Lol.