bearsandgiants said:

---

I don't see a huge problem with betting on your own team to WIN, but I suppose that might mean you'd be willing to injure the opponent or something, so they can't even allow that. Still, I believe that Pete Rose only bet on himself to win, so he never should have been penalized so harshly. I don't think getting kicked out of the NCAA entirely is reasonably unless it were proven that you bet against yourself and also played like crap.

---

CalLifer said:

---

graguna said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I don't see a huge problem with betting on your own team to WIN, but I suppose that might mean you'd be willing to injure the opponent or something, so they can't even allow that. Still, I believe that Pete Rose only bet on himself to win, so he never should have been penalized so harshly. I don't think getting kicked out of the NCAA entirely is reasonably unless it were proven that you bet against yourself and also played like crap.

---

100%
I never liked Pete Rose but a lifetime ban for betting on yourself??

to me there is a vast difference between betting on yourself vs against

---

First off, the bylaws of the game literally say lifetime ban for anyone betting on the sport in any fashion, whether for or against themselves. Second, esp. as a player manager, how do you know he didn't compromise the team by leaving pitchers in too long, using pitchers on short rest when they needed the day off, or just generally sacrificing the good of the team long-term for a single win? you don't know any of that which is why the rules are there (and which are posted in every clubhouse).

You can appreciate his baseball talent all you want, but there is no need to hand-wave away his breaking of the rules of baseball, the punishment for which he well knew.

---

graguna said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I don't see a huge problem with betting on your own team to WIN, but I suppose that might mean you'd be willing to injure the opponent or something, so they can't even allow that. Still, I believe that Pete Rose only bet on himself to win, so he never should have been penalized so harshly. I don't think getting kicked out of the NCAA entirely is reasonably unless it were proven that you bet against yourself and also played like crap.

---

100%
I never liked Pete Rose but a lifetime ban for betting on yourself??

to me there is a vast difference between betting on yourself vs against

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I don't see a huge problem with betting on your own team to WIN, but I suppose that might mean you'd be willing to injure the opponent or something, so they can't even allow that. Still, I believe that Pete Rose only bet on himself to win, so he never should have been penalized so harshly. I don't think getting kicked out of the NCAA entirely is reasonably unless it were proven that you bet against yourself and also played like crap.

---

OC Bear said:

---

I've always believed that if Rose would've apologized, joined GA, showed remorse, and spent time atoning (eg, speak to high schoolers about the evils of gambling), the Commish would have relented.

---

smh said:

---

OC Bear said:

---

I've always believed that if Rose would've apologized, joined GA, showed remorse, and spent time atoning (eg, speak to high schoolers about the evils of gambling), the Commish would have relented.

---

ga?

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Many years later, I ran into Pete and his bodyguard at a blackjack table in Vegas. He has a big personal gambling problem (which is a different thing than fixing games). Maybe he can afford it. But his behavior at the table revealed some deep issues.

Personal gambling and gaming addictions can be harmful to people and those that care about them.

But fixing games is another level that impacts a population that believes the outcome is NOT fixed.

---