Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
In BB #96, I mentioned I had a couple of thousand words to say about Charlie Hustle. Nobody here seemed to care; that thread got hijacked immediately. I know the subject is controversial; I'm aware that it polarizes people to extreme and inflexible positions. I understand if you're all tired of it and wish it would just go away.

For me, it's personal. I am a compulsive gambler, peacefully and gratefully in recovery for several years after nearly ruining my life by betting on horses. I don't judge Pete Rose; I empathize with him. I think it's as ridiculous to consider letting him back into the dugout as it is to exclude him from the Hall of Fame.

(August 12, 2003) Note: this piece was originally posted on a now-defunct site, but it has been added to the BB archives.


ďIím Pete R., and Iím a compulsive gambler.Ē

Thatís how the most prolific hitter in baseball history would introduce himself before 'giving therapy' at a Gamblers Anonymous meeting. Not that the Hit Leader is likely to attend GA; his notoriety makes a low profile impossible. Forget about anonymity. Thereís another reason Pete Rose is unlikely to seek help; like many gamblers still 'in action', he vehemently denies he has a problem, and the essential First Step in any 12-step self-help group is admitting one is 'powerless' over a substance or activity. Donít expect him to be sincere or contrite in any apology baseball forces him to make; if his addiction is still active, heís capable of doing or saying almost anything that serves his purposes.

How do I know? Iím Kent W., and Iím a compulsive gambler.

If you donít believe Rose is pathological, or if you think addicts are 'weak' rather than 'sick' and deserved to be punished, not rehabilitated, what I have to say might upset you. There are positions as extreme as ďmake him CommissionerĒ and ďshoot him,Ē and I am squarely in the middle left. Let him in the Hall of Fame, but keep him out of the dugout, for the gameís sake, and for Peteís. Managers are second-guessed enough already, and the perception of complete integrity is essential.

Baseballís gambling issue isnít limited to Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. There is no precise definition of compulsive gambler, so studies produce different results. Perhaps as many as five percent of the general public, and certainly more than one percent, are pathological. So you can assume that at least seven and possibly dozens of current MLB players are 'problem' gamblers. Thatís not to imply that theyíre fixing games, or even betting on baseball. It includes other sports, casinos, cards, lotteries, horses, dogs, jai-alai and the stock market.

The same ratio of people who experience extreme difficulty in their lives because of their inability to stop gambling extends to coaches and managers, so in the annals of baseball, there have been quite a few with problems that never became public knowledge. I would speculate that men of a certain age, with time on their hands and cash in their pockets while on the road half the year, would sample many of lifeís pleasures, including the racetrack. For the vast majority, these diversions donít turn into obsessions, but itís inevitable for some. I leave it to the experts to conclude whether the idle rich would be more, or less prone to developing habits they could not control.

Although I donít attend any more, GA meetings and members were a tremendous help during my repeated attempts to quit, after more than 20 years of gambling. Not on baseball, or any team sport, not at casinos or bingo halls, not in card games or on lotteries. My obsession was horse racing: thoroughbreds, standardbreds, even quarter horses. I admitted the problem and got professional help, continuing to see a therapist at the Problem Gambling Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, affiliated with the University of Toronto, though Iíve been 'clean' for five years. (We call our sessions ďrelapse prevention,Ē and since itís working, why mess with success?) I know that 'abstinent' never means 'cured.' I have a painful, personal understanding of the forces that control Rose and other gamblers. Like Pete, I took foolish risks with my career, but I didnít get caught, I ended up in a rehab hospital.

In harness racing, the Breeders Crown is the equivalent of baseballís World Series. I was the official in charge of arranging the best possible fields for many of these championships, supervising the draw for post positions, and staging the best possible card of supporting events. Hundreds of other race nights throughout the year compared to the 162-game baseball season, and my responsibilities included writing the eligibility conditions, filling the races with competitive horses, even predicting the winners. Itís difficult to compare to any one baseball job; like a GM, I assembled the best available talent, but like an umpire, I had to enforce the rules. Put it this way: after each nine-horse race, the winning owner and trainer might concede I did a decent job -- for once -- while the other eight blamed me.

Throughout my successful career as a horse racing official, I was 'in action' almost constantly, betting on the races I put together and supervised. Did I break the Racing Commission rules? Absolutely. Did I cross ethical lines? Probably. Did I ever betray my own integrity and affect the outcome of a race? No way. My need to gamble was obsessive, but I wasnít interested in a scam. On the contrary, ensuring 'my game' was on the level was of vital importance.

Once you are hooked on the action, winning and losing hardly matter, but each gamblerís moral compass is different, and so is their 'bottom.' Just because you are on the express bus to hell that is gambling addiction, you donít have to ride it all the way to the end of the line, which GA literature advises can be ďprison, insanity or death.Ē The habit didnít lead me, or Pete Rose, into the realm of 'fixing' an outcome, but only because interventions got us off the bus in time. The compulsion was powerful enough to make us break the rules of our sport, and take ridiculous professional and personal risks to continue our self-destructive habits.

The ban against betting in baseball stems from common sense: if enough players did it, dishonesty would be almost inevitable. That Pete Rose could have, eventually, been subjected to pressure to lose from a bookie or organized crime, is beyond question, but there is no evidence, even anecdotal, to suggest he ever played, or managed, not to win. If we accept that he bet on his own team, thatís a serious transgression, but equating that broken rule with the felony of game-rigging is a colossal mistake. Locking up poor people because they might someday steal something isnít right, either.

I would never have forgiven myself if I allowed my betting habit to affect my duties as a racing secretary. I gave 100% in the office, then took my chances with the other punters at predicting the outcome of my own efforts. On the topic of 'inside information,' letís just say itís overrated. One day, a horseman entering a cheap claimer mentioned that the horse was vastly improved because of some corrective shoeing. A few minutes later, a rival trainer whispered that he and his vet had corrected a mysterious lameness, and the horse he declared in the very same race was going to win, easily. I scheduled the race so there would be Trifecta wagering, and used my knowledge to best advantage, taking every possible combination with the two 'mortal locks' reversed on top. Since both drivers were extremely confident, each refused to concede the lead to the other, and a ridiculous battle ensued for three-quarters of a mile, with the others far behind. A 30-1 shot staggered by both exhausted 'sure things'Ē in the final yards. I was disappointed, but it didnít make me want to get my money back by tampering with the next race.

In all my years in the sport, I was never aware of a 'fix', but Iíve refused to grant stable space to, or take entries from, a few disreputable individuals. I would guess there are about the same percentage of 'bad apples' in most other walks of life, including baseball, or banking, for that matter. There are many circumstances, well within the rules, when a horse is entered with no intentions of winning. Returning from a layoff due to injury is a common reason to be conservative on the track, and 'green' horses often need several races to learn how to keep up, navigate the turns, or pass rivals. Again, baseball is similar. You donít conclude young pitchers are betting against themselves when they canít find the strike zone, or blame guys nursing rib cage injuries when they stop swinging for the fences.

For ten years, Iíve worked as a computer and network technician. I have no interest in returning to racing, but it would be foolish for a track to hire me in the position of trust I once held. With no possibility of affecting the outcome of any race, or the integrity of the sport, theoretically I could write about it, provide radio/TV commentary, or (you might think) return to the track announcerís booth. Probably not. Daryl Wells, the legendary race caller at Woodbine, was sacked because of a civil suit that implicated him as a partner in a bet that was completely legal for anyone outside the industry. Atop the grandstand, armed only with a microphone, Canadaís Voice of Racing was in no position to influence a race, but his employer and the Racing Commission reacted to the resulting press coverage with a zero-tolerance stance, and Wells paid the price. Iím not sure if heís in Thoroughbred racing's Hall of Fame, but he most certainly belongs, despite his mistake.

What have I learned from my struggle? Iím lucky to be alive, sorry for ruining my marriage, and greatly prefer my new life without 'action' to the lies and deception of my gambling days. For me, other forms of gambling are non-toxic if I stay away from the track. This contradicts the GA gospel, but I enjoy a card game with friends, and fantasy baseball exercises many of the same brain functions as playing the horses once did, with less wasted time and money, and less emotional fallout. Thereís a theory, gaining in popularity, that many compulsive gamblers have Attention Deficit Disorder, and many studies indicate a dangerously high rate of depression, alcoholism and suicide among problem gamblers. This is not the place to discern chickens from eggs, but in my case, since being diagnosed and treated for depression, and getting professional help from an addiction therapist, I havenít returned to the self-medication of betting on horses.

I know that billions of 1ís and 0ís are devoted to this topic on the Internet, plus countless acres of newsprint, and most people who want to uphold Roseís lifetime ban will not be swayed by my observations. From the perspective of a guy whoís been there, itís not a line between betting on your own team and fixing a game -- itís a chasm. The great L.A. Times sportswriter Jim Murray wrote in 1996, "betting on games is hardly fixing games." To elaborate on the distinction, he called the 1919 Black Sox crooks, and Rose an addict.

John Dowd, for whom Rose is the Great White Whale, recently spilled his guts to the New York Post, with more innuendo that Pete bet against his team. Dowd concludes, by the absence of evidence, that Rose didnít bet on Cincinnati in games started by their worst pitchers, but still offers no proof that he ever bet the Reds to lose. Dowdís self-serving agenda, and his reliance on witnesses whose credibility is questionable, are tiresome.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter wrote seven years ago, "It's Time to Forgive Pete Rose." The Nobel Peace Prize winner, more compassionate and smarter than Dowd, explained: "I find the testimony (mostly from convicted felons) about Pete Rose's betting on sports events to be convincing and disheartening, but evidence about specifically betting on baseball is less than compelling." Carter supported giving Rose an "opportunity for redemption," citing extenuating circumstances: "The most important are the marvelous (not just superior) achievements of Pete Rose as a player during his long career."

If youíre old enough to remember when Monday Night Football was cool, youíll recall Chet Forte, one of TVís most innovative directors, an 11-time Emmy winner. If youíre older than me, you might know Chet was an All-American basketball player at Columbia. This talented, successful man blew millions of dollars, including his home, because he couldnít control his gambling. He worked hard to repay his debts, ending up on sports talk radio in San Diego, and reportedly went to GA meetings until a fatal heart attack in 1996. If Forte was still around, I would have no problem with him being in the TV truck for the Super Bowl, but I wouldnít be too pleased if he was the referee, no matter how 'successful' his recovery. Pete Rose deserves the same consideration.

Even if his public stance is one of genuine atonement, which I doubt, Rose should never again be in a position where he can influence the outcome of a ball game. That includes the dugout and the field, but I fail to see why he is a danger to the Pastime as a talking head, in marketing or public relations, or in player development. (The disease isnít contagious.) I doubt that he wants, or would be considered for, a front-office position. Some kind of conditional, limited reinstatement is necessary for all parties; removing Pete from the possibility of temptation, protecting the game from further embarrassment, and ending the debate about his transgressions, which didnít exactly destroy baseball. Some suggest the current Commissioner has done more damage.

My personal Web site is called ďBaseball Therapy,Ē because the Pastime is one of the few pleasant memories to survive a childhood Iíd rather not remember. My dad was what you might call a hands-on guy, with a short fuse. He lost a lifelong battle with alcohol; two years later, I was lifted from my own misery by one of the greatest World Series in history. During seven magnificent baseball games, I went from despair to hope. It was 1975, so I feel connected, by more than our common affliction, to the MVP, Peter Edward Rose. I do hope Iím a more likeable person than Pete; heís a liar, heís a jerk, and heís unremorseful. People hate him. Faults and all, Charlie Hustle is also baseball, and the Hall of Fame is incomplete without him.
For Pete's Sake | 22 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Craig B - Thursday, December 19 2002 @ 09:59 PM EST (#81965) #
Kent, when you forwarded this to me a couple of weeks ago, I didn't have much to say other than that it was very good.

I have to modify that... I think it's terrific. Terrific and insightful. It is a reminder of the proverb that before one is to judge a man, one ought to walk a mile in his shoes.** Too often, we don't realise that the message behind the proverb is not merely one of forgiveness... rather, it is an exhortation to know the person upon whom you pronounce judgement, so that you can better address yourself to them. Walking a mile in someone's shoes doesn't always make you sympathetic to them.

In Pete's case, the answer clearly isn't to tear up the agreement, tell him that he has done his time and is a free man. Baseball's inevitable reconciliation to Pete Rose needs to come with deliberation and care, and must (in my view) necessarily involve a partial ban on his involvement with teams. No group of players deserves to have Pete Rose walking among them, and no worse lesson could be taught to a young player, than to have an unrepentant Pete Rose work with them in any capacity.

I don't have any objection to Pete Rose working for the networks; I would have tremendous difficulty accepting any situation where he was put into contact with active players.

If Pete's reconciliation to MLB involves an open admission of what he had done, and treatment, it would be so much the better. I don't think that's going to happen, but if players who are suspended for substance abuse violations are required to complete counselling, I don't see any difference in this case.

The only danger I see in reinstating Rose, is the ammunition it gives to the "reinstate Joe Jackson" fanatics. But that's for another day.

** the part of the proverb that is usualy left out is, "that way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."
_Ryan Adams - Thursday, December 19 2002 @ 10:11 PM EST (#81966) #
My understanding is that the Hall of Fame can do whatever it wants. They aren't formally tied to baseball and it was their decision not to admit anyone who was banned from the game. They can change that rule without the approval of Bud Selig or any of the owners.

I'm completely opposed to Pete Rose being reinstated, but I'm starting to change my tune on admitting him into the Hall of Fame (mostly because I'm tired of hearing about this issue :-)). If I were the commissioner, I wouldn't budge on Rose's banishment. However, I don't think I would put up a serious fight if the HOF chose to ease up on their restrictions. If allowing Rose into the HOF \while still keeping him far away from organized baseball\ would put this issue to rest, I might be open to it. I ultimately care more about the integrity of the game than a museum in central New York state.
_Kent - Thursday, December 19 2002 @ 10:27 PM EST (#81967) #
Thanks, Craig. You and Jordan know how I agonized over this, not that I'm embarrassed to "come out" as a gambler (that's actually more theraputic at this point than keeping secrets) but because I wasn't sure my deeply personal opinions would matter to anyone else. The intention wasn't to change anyone's mind, but to shed some "grey" light on a subject often portrayed in stark black and white.

I respect your concern about keeping Pete away from all players, all the time, but I have no objection to him working as an instructor in spring training, or with minor-leaguers. My only condition would be that he's not in uniform for MLB games. And that's not because I think he would cheat -- I'm certain he never did -- but the public perception of the mere possibility could hurt the sport.
Craig B - Thursday, December 19 2002 @ 10:41 PM EST (#81968) #
Kent, my only concern is the perception that Pete got away with it. A bad example, as it were. If he is able to make amends, seek treatment (or at least have it determined whether he actually does need treatment) and apologize for what he did, I would have less problem with him in uniform, etc.

I wouldn't employ Pete Rose on my baseball club (if I owned one).
_Sean - Friday, December 20 2002 @ 01:54 AM EST (#81969) #
Well, that was an eye-opening read and no mistake.

Kent, I commend you for having the courage to reveal deeply private information about yourself in hopes of improving the debate on such a divisive issue.

I can't say I favour re-instating Pete Rose, nor admitting him to the Hall of Fame, but I certainly have a better understanding of the types of problems Rose faces. If he chose to embark on actual self-rehabilitation, perhaps my opinion about him would change and become more forgiving, much like Ryan expresses above.
_jason - Friday, December 20 2002 @ 04:31 AM EST (#81970) #
Goodbye Cruz. Maybe the Jays will take the money they save and try to sign a pitcher who was, like Cruz, not offered arbitration.
_Jordan - Friday, December 20 2002 @ 09:46 AM EST (#81971) #
Kent, simply a terrific article. I think you've changed a lot of perceptions, and thanks to Craig's e-mail to Baseball Primer, a lot of people there are thinking a little differently today too. There's no greater compliment for a writer than to have shown the reader something familiar in a new light. Well done.
Dave Till - Friday, December 20 2002 @ 10:25 AM EST (#81972) #
Kent, I just read your Pete Rose article, and I respect your courage.

As for Rose: the agreement that he signed explicitly states that Rose has not admitted to betting on baseball, nor has he been found guilty of same. I think baseball owes Rose a final decision on the subject: either find him guilty of betting, in which case he must pay the price, or exonerate him (in which case, alas, he would be entitled to return to baseball, if any team would have him).

As for the Hall of Fame, I find I don't really care one way or another. Someone once suggested enshrining him after he dies, which might solve the problem. His accomplishments on the field, which were considerable, deserve to be remembered in some way or other.

It would be fascinating to hear him do colour commentary on a baseball game. Rose is amoral, but he's quotable, and he knows baseball.

An excellent book on Rose is Hustle by Michael Sokolove (a Cincinnati sportswriter). The thesis of the book is that Rose's athletic ability, and people's worship of it, basically gave him free rein to do whatever he wanted in life, regardless of the effects his behaviour might have on others.
_Kent - Friday, December 20 2002 @ 06:14 PM EST (#81973) #
Thanks, everyone. We're a polite group, so I didn't expect a heated debate here, but was prepared for Primate backlash. To my surprise, almost every response there has also been kind, and I am grateful to all.

The latest gambit by Selig is to meet with the 58 living Hall of Fame members in mid-January to see what they think about Pete joining them. A good move, as even a partial reinstatement is is not something that should be done hastily. Here's the story.

Ryan, sorry I didn't address this earlier; it's been a busy day. The Hall protected itself from determined lobbyists by adopting a rule barring anyone on MLB's "ineligible" list from entry. No way Cooperstown takes the lead, or even wants to be involved. (If they have an eye on the bottom line, they might be for Rose's induction, which will draw an unprecedented crowd and enormous publicity.) So if Bud doesn't lift his ban, nothing will happen.
_Ryan Adams - Saturday, December 21 2002 @ 03:55 PM EST (#81974) #
Bob Costas was on CNN last night with Aaron Brown and they talked briefly about Rose's possible reinstatement. I'm not sure how much inside knowledge Costas has on this issue, but his comments were interesting. From the CNN transcript, about three-quarters of the way down:

I'm assuming that Bud Selig is going to divide this into two parts and set up fairly stringent conditions for each of them. He's going to separate the Hall of Fame from reinstatement to baseball as an ongoing participant. And that seems valid to me. He could gain entry to both under different conditions. Or only one, or neither if he's not willing to meet Selig's conditions.

...

But I think Pete will not be able to say, yes, I'm sorry. Or yes, I bet on baseball. He's going to have to acknowledge specifics.

I think if Selig is smart, he'll make, as one of the conditions, that if and when Pete is elected to the Hall of Fame, that in his acceptance speech, on the steps at Cooperstown, along with everything else he wants to talk about, he's going to have to acknowledge having bet on baseball. He's going to have to acknowledge that the suspension or the banishment at the time was legitimate. That's step one. That's the Hall of Fame.

If he's ever going to get back in baseball's total good graces, to be employed by baseball in some way or at least eligible to be, there might be another set of conditions, and that might be further down the road.

- end quote -

I'm not sure what to make of this. Costas has been out to lunch on a number of baseball issues in recent years. Take what he says with a grain of salt.
_Kent - Sunday, December 22 2002 @ 11:51 AM EST (#81975) #
Thanks, Ryan. Whether or not you're a Costas fan (I think his Olympic hosting gig was awful, but I still respect him on baseball issues) he's credible. Costas says "Joe Morgan is one of those trying to broker the deal. If Pete comes clean. (italics mine; sounds like even Little Joe's support is conditional.) And if Selig sets down appropriate conditions, there might be a path to get Pete back in the game." He also identifies Bob Feller as one HoF'er who isn't likely to support leniency at the proposed January meeting with the Commissioner.

In another development, Wes Hills of the Dayton, Ohio Daily News offers this unflattering report. The tape is further evidence of Rose's gambling problem, and the bookie says the 1986 debt is three years old, so that supports the theory -- which I never doubted -- that Pete was in action when he was playing. But it's all about horses and football debts, not baseball bets.

The author includes a reference to Tom Seaver's first game as a Red, back in 1977, where the bookie talks about his own action, and Rose admits he remembers the game, then makes a joke about another book who "knows something we don't". Interesting stuff, but nothing most of us didn't already assume.

Absent any evidence that he ever rigged, or attempted to fix, the outcome of a baseball game, I remain convinced that Rose is a sad, flawed human being who doesn't deserve our admiration or respect, or a blanket pardon for his misdeeds, or a position in anyone's dugout. Nor should there be an attempt by MLB to reform his image; that's up to Pete. All I've tried to add to the debate was an opinion that his illness is misunderstood, chronic, and responsible for much of his boorish behaviour. I'm not a Rose apologist, but consider his personal troubles completely separate from the fact that he was a great, great player.
_snellville jone - Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#81976) #
Here we go...
_snellville jone - Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 11:07 AM EDT (#81977) #
Breaking news at BP. Pete Rose back in baseball?
Craig B - Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 12:51 PM EDT (#81978) #
_Jon Miller - Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:18 PM EDT (#81979) #
Kent, Great article. You should submit this or something like it to major sports magazines like Sports Illustrated. Everyone needs to read this if they want to take a position in the Rose debate. Jon
Coach - Friday, January 02 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST (#81980) #
Richard Griffin calls Rose a "very imperfect man" and says that "they should keep him out of uniform for a while," but concludes that it's time the Hit King was eligible for Cooperstown.

The BP article by Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg last August, linked above by Snellville Jones, claimed that the agreement for Pete's reinstatement "includes no admission of wrongdoing by Rose." That may have changed; we'll see what his book says. Prepare for the media frenzy...
Mike Green - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 12:37 PM EST (#81981) #
Rose's book will be released on Thursday, and espn.com reports that he will admit having bet on baseball in 1987 and 1988.

Assuming that Rose bet on his team to win, but not to lose (and this is what the Dowd report suggested), should he be reinstated to baseball? As Coach says, it's not the same situation as the Black Sox. Rose's actions did not lead to a fraudulent game, where one team was not trying to win. Rather, the risk is that he used inside information from his position in baseball to further his chances of winning a bet. I would describe the risk here as akin to that of insider trading.

The problem is that the gambling industry does not have the same regulatory body as the securities industry. And, unfortunately, gambling and sports are terribly intertwined. You can lay bets on who will win the Presidency or who will win the Super Bowl, but many more will choose the sporting contest. It was for these reasons, I think, that baseball had a rule against "betting on baseball", which went far beyond the Black Sox situation.

Is it time to revisit the rule? Well, maybe. If so, one certainly does need to think in general terms about what the sanction should be for this form of "insider betting", leaving aside the particulars of Pete Rose. Why am I pessimistic that MLB will put its mind to the general question, but will instead make an exception for Pete Rose?
Craig B - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST (#81982) #
Pete Rose, in my view, should certainly not be reinstated. It's unfair to take someone and make an example of him to others, but that's life and it isn't always fair. While this is not the same as the Black Sox, it isn't far away.

It shouldn't keep him out of the Hall of Fame.
Mike Green - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 02:08 PM EST (#81983) #
Craig, my understanding of the Hall of Fame's rules is that someone who is banned from baseball is ineligible for the Hall of Fame. If you are suggesting that MLB's sanction for "insider betting" should be complete disassociation from MLB save for possible eligibility for the Hall of Fame, in other words a less than complete ban, this is an interesting proposal, and certainly worth consideration.

I really do think that it's important for baseball to first reformulate the general rule (if that is what it wishes to do), before considering how it might apply to Pete Rose.

Now, returning to pure baseball, how many ballplayers who were better than Pete Rose are not in the Hall of Fame? I also noticed that Rose won a couple of Gold Gloves. Were they merited? My memory of him is that he was, at best, an average defender at any of the positions he played, but I was a kid during his prime.
Craig B - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST (#81984) #
Mike, that's correct. However, the Hall is open to reconsider this rule, and I think it should. But that has nothing to do with th question of reinstatement.

Your comment about baseball reconsidering the general rule before thinking how it is to treat Pete is a good one. Clearly, if Pete is going to be reinstated, some consideration needs to be given to clarifying exactly what the penalties for gambling-related offenses are to be. Better to do that before Pete is welcomed back, though of course it will never happen.
robertdudek - Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST (#81985) #
With much sympathy to those addicted to gambling, betting on your own team when you are a player or field manager (especially manager) is the baseball equivalent of insider trading. Rose had intimate knowledge of how his players were feeling, what nagging injuries they were carrying, what their confidence level was against other teams/players etc. that the general public wouldn't be privy to. It's hard for me to believe that he didn't use this information when deciding when to bet on his team.

I agree that that's a long way away from fixing a game, but I don't support Rose's reinstatement and would oppose the idea of Rose working in the industy - even in the media.
_Ben NS - Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:48 PM EST (#81986) #
I agree with everything said in that most fascinating article and have moved from the "undecided" camp to the "hall but no ball" camp. I extend my respectful congratulations on your recovery.
For Pete's Sake | 22 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.