You don't have a problem with a player or manager knowingly effect the outcome of a game? GGuys on PEDs don't know how they will effect the game. They still went 0-5 many times, whether on the juice or not. Pete could willingly effect the outcome of individual games. Another thing not talked about here is the issue of someone falling into insurmountable debt to his bookies. Never turns out well does it?

 

Never said gambling didn't have an effect or was acceptable, only that I think PED's have a greater effect. I think it's quite clear that PED's had a huge impact on the players' performances and thus, outcomes of the games. If it didn't, why would all these players have bothered to take the drugs?

 

You make the case that perhaps a manager holds back a reliever to hopefully effect the outcome of the game in which he's bet, yet it's not as though he's guaranteed to change the game results. He still has to put in some reliever, a reliever who is going out there to do the best job he can to produce a favorable outcome for his team.

 

Heck, half the lineups I see Dusty put together for the Reds look like he's trying to throw the game. Why did he play Patterson all year long last year? Why does he continue to start and lead off Taveras?

Next poll:

 

What's a worse way to die?

 

Like Lyle Alzado?

 

By Nicky Santoro?

I am happy to see that so many folks are on my side here. Colin argued for PEDs being the greater crime to the game because of the impact on the numbers.

 

I argue that gambling on games in which you effect the outcome is much worse.

 

I think it comes down to this for me; for all the warts of the PED usage, it was about making a guy a better player which in turn makes the team better. It is cheating, but its is trying to win 100% of the time.

 

Gambling, even if you only bet your team to win (which I don't believe anyone would do) impacts wins and loses for the team. It impacts decisions during a game and can lead to negatives for your team during the game or down the road. It impacts a teams performance for the season and has impacted a World Series already (1919). The biggest impact is the message sent in games in which you don't bet; you go in thinking your team is not going to be successful. It is crazy to me that a professional would do that. It impacts the integrity of the game and it is incredibly selfish, IMO.

I am happy to see that so many folks are on my side here. Colin argued for PEDs being the greater crime to the game because of the impact on the numbers.

 

I argue that gambling on games in which you effect the outcome is much worse.

 

I think it comes down to this for me; for all the warts of the PED usage, it was about making a guy a better player which in turn makes the team better. It is cheating, but its is trying to win 100% of the time.

 

Gambling, even if you only bet your team to win (which I don't believe anyone would do) impacts wins and loses for the team. It impacts decisions during a game and can lead to negatives for your team during the game or down the road. It impacts a teams performance for the season and has impacted a World Series already (1919). The biggest impact is the message sent in games in which you don't bet; you go in thinking your team is not going to be successful. It is crazy to me that a professional would do that. It impacts the integrity of the game and it is incredibly selfish, IMO.

 

They bet on their team to lose and took money in exchange for poor play on the field (no offense to Shoeless Joe). Big difference from betting on your team to win.

Gambling on games is worse...unless of coarse you are betting on your team to win.

 

The calls into integrity of the game as well, when you aren't betting at all, essentially you are betting your team to lose. Especially in Rose's case (if he bet on the Reds), he would certainly manage the game a different way if he bet them to win, than if not.

They bet on their team to lose and took money in exchange for poor play on the field (no offense to Shoeless Joe). Big difference from betting on your team to win.

 

The thread is about which is worse, PED usage or gambling on games in which you can influence the outcome. That is exactly what happpend with the Black Sox.

 

If you believe that a player who has sunk to the depths of betting on his own team would not bet them to lose, that is you right and that is fine. I believe that you can still impact your team if that is the case. As a manager, maybe you make decisions that hurt your team long term (leave a reliever in too long, bring a guy back on short rest, rush a guy to the bigs or off the DL, etc.) for the short term gain of winning the game you bet on.

 

Even if you disagree with that point, you can not argue that the spectre of this type of behavior is a black eye for the game and intergrity of seasons managed by this person will always be deservedly called into question. It is selfish, IMO. It is a greater crime in a baseball sense for me because of the overtly selfish nature of it.

I think people give PED's way too much credit for inflating numbers.

I think people give PED's way too much credit for inflating numbers.

 

Who's to say that pitchers aren't using them?

Who's to say that pitchers aren't using them?

They were/are using them. But other then recovery what is steroids going to do for a pitcher?

Who's to say that pitchers aren't using them?

 

Roger Clemens never used them.

They bet on their team to lose and took money in exchange for poor play on the field (no offense to Shoeless Joe). Big difference from betting on your team to win.

 

After Rose lied at every opportunity regarding his gambling on baseball and only admitted that he bet on games when he had no other recourse do you really believe that he only bet on his team to win? He demonstrated little, if any, integrity throughout the whole process--I have a hard time understanding how many of his supporters are so quick to believe his claims that he only bet on the Reds to win. If he lied every step of the way, why should we believe that part of his story?

After Rose lied at every opportunity regarding his gambling on baseball and only admitted that he bet on games when he had no other recourse do you really believe that he only bet on his team to win? He demonstrated little, if any, integrity throughout the whole process--I have a hard time understanding how many of his supporters are so quick to believe his claims that he only bet on the Reds to win. If he lied every step of the way, why should we believe that part of his story?

 

:thumb:

 

My sentiments exactly.

I'll say the PEDs...

This is really easy, just look at how baseball has reacted to each over the past 90 years. One of the two, they almost completely ignored for 30-40 years; they let get worse and worse because it was helping to bring fans back after the strike; they allowed to completely rewrite the record books; and everyone turned their heads while it was going on. The other of the two, they impose lifetime bans on those involved in the worst scandal in the sports history even though this activity was becoming prevalent in society and sports; they suspend players for associating with people involved in this activity; they impose lifetime bans on players for doing it and have a notice in every clubhouse in MLB warning them about it.

After Rose lied at every opportunity regarding his gambling on baseball and only admitted that he bet on games when he had no other recourse do you really believe that he only bet on his team to win? He demonstrated little, if any, integrity throughout the whole process--I have a hard time understanding how many of his supporters are so quick to believe his claims that he only bet on the Reds to win. If he lied every step of the way, why should we believe that part of his story?

 

Because the Dowd report produced no credible, reliable evidence whatsoever that he bet against him own team??