Drugs vs. Betting in Baseball?

Question

Can you tell me why we ban a gambler from the HOF who bet on his own team that to me shows he had faith in them but let the drugies and guys that are juiced in what kinda message is that sending to our kids that it's ok to do steroids but if you gamble thats impure and you will be banned for life to me that's a little messed up

Answer 1

You are right that both issues damage the integrity of sports. However, the problem that the commissioner has is one of fairness. There is not a way to determine how many players have done steroids. If Bonds is punished and a hundred other guys get away with it, Bonds is being punished for being famous and breaking a record, somewhat. I am not condoning his apparent use of steroids; I am very much in favor of maintaining and strengthening the integrity of sports of all kinds and on all levels. I am not a big Selig fan either, but I see the dilemma that he faces.
NOTE to the person who mentioned Ty Cobb. Cobb was personally reprehensible, Ruth was a drunken womanizer, but those guys did not compromise the integrity of baseball.

Answer 2

If if it makes you feel any better I firmly believe that none of the members of the Barry Bonds and the Steroid Boys road show will ever get into the HOF as members.
I honestly believe that the members of the BBWAA know about the fans anger about this issue and are going to make a loud and clear moral statement that says's that those that cheat will not be admitted-ever.
The interesting thing is that half of the voting requirements for the HOF -character , integrity & sportmanship -are entirely subjective
So the BBWAA would be well within their rules if they rejected certain candidates on subjective grounds,

Answer 3

I think Pete Rose should be banned, he bet on baseball and his own team. I don't care if he bet that they would win, he still bet on his own team, that is totally wrong. But I also think those people that did Steroids should be banned.
The problem for major league baseball is this: betting on baseball was always against the rules in Major League Baseball. They have never condoned it and Pete Rose knew what he was getting himself into. But with steroids, Major League Baseball pretty much sanctioned it. They didn't do any testing, we don't really know who did and didn't use steroids. There should have been testing for the past twenty years!

Answer 4

he was banned because he didn't bet on his team on days when certain pitchers started which was basically a green light for other gamblers to bet against the Reds on those days.

There was also evidence suggesting that Rose actually bet against them.

I agree with you that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame - -just for his stats alone. No one ever said Ty Cobb was a man of good moral character.

Comparing drug use to betting on baseball -- - I don't agree with steroids, HGH, the cream, the clear, etc., but I still think betting on the game is much more dangerous than accumulating stats under the influence of juice. I'm not condoning the drugs, but as Tim Donaghy could tell you, when those in command compromise the integrity of the game, it has a wide-spread impact.

Answer 5

It SHOULDN'T be drugs vs. betting. Selig blew the call. The Players' Union won't allow what SHOULD be: use PEDs, and yer out, just like with betting. Nevertheless, betting earns a ban from baseball. Period. And it should. Write Selig. You're right. PEDs should be one of two things on a very short list that no player (and ESPECIALLY a manager) should do. Don't blame the game, blame the machine.

Answer 6

This has nothing to do with the Hall. That is a separate organization and a separate question.

Gambling within baseball is bad; it contains the potential to be massively corrosive. I'll offer two examples, and for the sake of readers I'll try to keep them simple.

1. Team manager "Peat" bets on his own team (in clear violation of organization rules) Friday's game. Late in Thursday's game, clinging to a one-run lead, Peat decides NOT to put in his ace reliever in order to keep him fresh for Friday and improve his chances to win that game. Lesser relievers blow the Thursday game. Peat doesn't look like he did anything wrong, but because he had a clear conflict of interest regarding Friday's game, he deliberately did not use his player resources to best effort to win on Thursday (a game which was winnable, not some blowout).

How happy would fans be if they knew what motivated Peat on Thursday, not trying to win? Management? Ownership? How about when the team falls one win short of a postseason berth in October? Git the tar 'n feathers, Maw.

2. Despite his bet on Friday's game, Peat's team LOSES. He bets again -- and LOSES. He bets again -- and LOSES. Peat is getting pretty darn deep in debt to his bookie. Bookie suggests that, welllllll, maaaaaybeeee Peat could slack off a bit on that meaningless Monday night game, not bet on it of course, but heck, what's one little game in the standings? And certain other customers could clean up. Now, Peat may have no conscience about such perfidy, and it's not a game on which he has money riding, but again, there's a game in which the effort to win was, let's be gentle, suboptimal.

And, heck, that wasn't so bad, maybe the bookie will cancel another 25% of his debt for another shucks-didn't-win effort next week.

And so it goes. The only -- ONLY -- possible defense a player or manager can offer is that he (a) bet on EVERY game, equally and (b) wagered to win every time. Because simply by NOT betting on a given game, or two, indicates a lack of faith in that night's efforts (starting pitcher sucks, probably), but that alone is enough insider information to shift the odds unfairly. Not to mention the obvious extortion opportunities -- "gosh, Peat, I may just have to go to the papers with this sort of debt load, unless youse can do me a favor or two..."

Gambling isn't a moral issue. It has massive potential to harm the public's perception of the integrity of the game, and that directly feeds into the game's economic interests. And there is no faster way to get ownership's attention than to threaten their revenue streams.

And that's why gambling is bad. Which way the wager(s) go is irrelevant; it's lighting a really big, destructive firecracker that is best never lit.

Answer 7

Pete Rose didnt bet on his team, he bet against his team.

Answer 8

naw if u mess up that bad u gotta do ur time

Answer 9

Both are horrible