All you guys out their that don't think quite a few players on ALL professional levels are involved in some sort of gambling related to THEIR team are very naive. If its just as little as advicing a gambling friend of theirs that asks the simple question: Do you think you guys can win the game tonight? to actuallt trying a bit harder if their friend has a wager on the game. Gambling is a HUGE problem in sports.
umm... ok wrote:
yah, only 7 tour wins. so sad to see a great career cut "short".
Cheaters are never winners in the steroids game. Unfortunately Armstrong and other steroid users like him have a short future ahead of them. Armstrong will likely die sooner than later.
Remember back when one of your high school teachers told you "cheaters never win" even while you were using your cheat sheet to help you ace one of his/her stupid pointless tests which had little if any bearing on ANYTHING anywhere besides that assinine class? And now you find yourself saying the same things. Getting old is a bitch.
"Cheaters never win" is only true when a cheater gets caught. That's why they cheat.
Oh, and Rose is a jackass. Serves him right.
I wouldn't mind this sanctimonious mess about Pete Rose's gambling if his opponents weren't so selective about who does/doesn't damage the game's integrity. Think about it:
Ty Cobb = First man inducted into the hall of fame. Also a racist, bigoted S.O.B. who has allegedly pistol-whipped a black man to death. Furthermore, he pulled a Ron Artest and jumped into the stands to fight with fans long before Ron Artest's grand-pappy was conceived.
Dwight Gooden and Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle...not exactly the models of personal integrity.
There are lots of guys with steroids practically dripping from their eyeballs when they step up to the plate. They're heroes. And the Rooney family (owns the Pittsburgh Steelers) made their fortunes in gambling. All of the aforementioned are "heroes" while Pete Rose is a villain. Where is the vocal opposition to what they're doing? And I don't just mean on this thread, I know a few people have mentioned those names earlier. I'm talking about on the whole. None of those other people can spark a debate like Pete Rose can. Their actions off-the field are just as deplorable as anything Pete Rose did, though.
Locknload wrote:
Betting on your own team is pretty weak whether your a player or manager. And screw those on steroids too. Serves them right.
I don't care much about baseball, never did, but I agree with your sentiments on this. I see that I also agree with sam w, another fellow whom I tend to disagree with on many other topics on letsrun. Is the sky falling? ;-)
Pete Rose's attitude has rubbed off on his kid. This has got to be a living hell for him, as it would be for any Dad. Now his kid is just another Armstrong. Just another Bonds. Just another Romo. Just another Shrunk Dick. Nobody will ever recognizes any his phony wins and the stats in the record books will be considered fiction. To waste your God given life, and accomplishment nothing, is the greatest Sin.
Pete is a liar and a cheat and should be forever imprisoned in the BroJos' mind.
Gooden had one of the best 3 years runs in baseball history. Now for self induced reasons, he did not sustain greatness, but he is certainly as deserving as some of the guys in the hall (Neikro, Sutton). Not that he should go, but just sayin'.
Belle was the best hitter in baseball for 1 year - more than Rose, and for about 5 years, he was behind only Griffey and Thomas for best hitter in the game. He was a total asshole, and he had a short career, but his percentages are close to Rose's and he hit for much more power. Another thing that helps Belle is that it is he has never been implicated for steroids in the juiced era. He has even been called the best hitter of the era that was never on the juice. Not sure how true that is, but writers may look at it.
Rose is one of the most overrated players of all time. Sure he's got the most hits, but he also has the most at bats, games, and plate appearances meaning that he also had the most chances to get a hit. He is Hank Aaron without power.
What about John Wetteland? 9th all-time for saves, 1996 World Series MVP (with 4 consecutive saves), one of the most dominating closers (though never lights-out, he always made it interesting) from 1993-2000.
He shouldn't make it on the first ballot (I personally think that only the Babe Ruths and Nolan Ryans should), but perhaps on his second or third try.
JimFiore wrote:
I see that I also agree with sam w, another fellow whom I tend to disagree with on many other topics on letsrun. Is the sky falling? ;-)
i dont know if the sky is falling, but where i am at the sky is darn cloudy and it is awful cold. so it could be sign of something freezing over.
I think Belle got caught with a corked bat at least once.
Also, regarding Rose, even if he was really betting on his own team and just to win, as a previous poster said, using a pitcher with not enough rest or other such vulnerability to injury could potentially jeopardize that pitcher's entire future.
So betting on your own team is still way not cool.
Graham, I know you mean well in your defense of Rose. It's just misguided. There is a large poster on the wall of every clubhouse in every MLB stadium warning about gambling. You'll not find that warning about being a good person or drinking or any other potential problem.
The reason for this should be obvious. Nothing has the potential to destroy sports in America like gambling. If it goes on and is not dealt with, the ramifications would be enormous. You cannot have participants of a sport involved in gambling on that sport. Period.
Trying to compare the gambling of Pete Rose with the gambling of Art Rooney doesn't make any sense unless Art Rooney was betting on the Steelers and we all know that's not the case.
Regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks, Pete Rose signed an agreement which said in part that he was banned for life from baseball. Yes it said he could apply for reinstatement and he has done just that. So what? Nowhere did it say he WOULD be reinstated. The question then should not be whether he should be in the Hall. It should be whether he should be reinstated and that will always be answered no by Bud Selig.
knowledge wrote:
I heard he hates n*****s and that is why he wont be inducted to the hall of fame. Does anyone have anything to help back this up? I also heard he hates wetbacks.
i can back this up. i once saw him kill a black pitcher for thinking he cud strike him out. after the next pitch he threw that bat and him the n****r in the face. also he said wetbacks have ruined the game thinking they r something. he said they r just light skinned n*****s and he hates them to.