I find it strange that the NBA was investigating Jordan's gambling problem, but 2 days after he "retired" they announced that Jordan never bet on NBA games.
1992 In March, three Jordan checks for $108,000 are found in the briefcase of murdered man. It reveals the extent of Jordan’s gambling. Testitying under oath, Jordan admits $57,000 check he wrote to Slim Bouler was in part for gambling debts. He had been saying the check was a business loan. 1993 Spends night before a May 26 playoff game gambling in Atlantic City casino. Richard Esquinas writes that Jordan lost $900,000 to him playing golf, negotiated the debt down to $300,000 and paid only $200,000. http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/jordan/timeline.html
Hope you have more than that to go on. I personally think Jordan was distraught over his father's murder (yeah, killed by bookies he owed money to, right?).
He is never going to admit that he bet on baseball. He belongs in the Hall of Fame. There are players that have done much worse and accomplished a helluva lot less that have entered the Hall of Fame. Bottom line is that as betting on baseball games really isnt that big of a deal unless, of course, you bet against your own team. Even the bookie's testimony didn't support that Rose bet against his own team. I know an NFL Hall of Famer personally and he told me that the guys on his team had a friggin fantasy football league!!! It was a HUGE money league to boot. Imagine a LB letting a guy score from the one in a meaningless game just to win his fantasy game that week? Even the bookies testimony didn't support that Rose bet against his own team.
Maybe those were just the tip of the iceburg? And maybe not. If the NBA has any evidence of Jordan betting on NBA games, we will never see it. Interesting article: http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1635/pg1/
Baseball lines only come out on the same day of the game, except where you can bet on who will win a playoff series. You can't even bet tomorrow's game in Vegas unless its a playoff game and the pitching matchups are predetermined etc. Only in football are the lines out several days before the game in the regular season. Whether or not Rose rested a pitcher for the following day (which wasn't the case since they researched whether or not he 'screwed around' with his pitching rotation when they tried to see if he may have bet on the Reds) is irrelevant. Whether or not Rose was planning on betting on "tomorrow's game" had more to do with whether he won or lost money that particular day, not because he decided the day before to bet the game.
he knew it was against the rules...he did it anyway...he new it was the cardinal sin...he did it anyway.
Don't you think that someone knows what game they will bet on regardless of whether or not the line has been posted? For example, Rose knows he is going to have a good pitching matchup in 3 days so he has decided that he is going to bet on that game. Perhaps that is a day he normally rests his best player (not pitcher). Instead, he rests him the day before. Also, perhaps the day before he decides not to use or extend his closer or setup man so they will be more rested for the game he is going to bet on. Many of these decisions can be innocent but they all lead to a question of the integrity of any particular game. Granted he is going to go all out to win the game he bets on but is he doing so at the expense of games he did not bet on? Perhaps not, but again, if there is a question then the integrity of the game is compromised.
I am going to assume that you don't gamble on sports. I would imagine that anyone on here who does/has bet on sports (more than just the superbowl or world series) would tell you that a compulsive gambler does not look at betting that way. Even for Rose, who could adjust pitching matchups...he had no control over his own teams injuries and things like that. Also, he had no control (for the most part) on whether a player on his roster would be traded the following day...or if his opposition would trade for a player that would make them a lot better than they were 3 days prior. point taken there Overall, my point is that it is assumed that Rose was a compulsive gambler. He needed the action. Compulsive gamblers wake up in the morning and decide what teams they will bet on and how much they will bet. Rarely (except in cases such as the Super Bowl, Rose Bowl, etc) will a bettor look 3 days ahead...let alone 3 games ahead...because he may be broke by then..or cutoff by the bookmaker for reaching his limit.
Bart Giamatti was a piece of crap and really gave Pete the wrong impression when it came to reinstatement. They need to come to some type of compromise here. Put Pete in the Hall but don't allow him to work for any MLB organizations. Pete obviously can't be trusted any longer but he didn't tank games. He busted his ass like no other every time he stepped on the field and deserves to be recognized as a Hall of Famer.
That's an excellent point. Giamatti left the door open for Rose to come back eventually...a fact that Selig fails to consider. Selig makes such a big deal of upholding what his late, great predecessor did, but he fails to recognize that Giamatti may have led Rose to believe that after it blows over, he can apply for reinstatement
I don't think anybody is saying it is OK to bet on baseball. And I hadn't really considered Bobreks point about deliberately resting players. I still feel the punishment has been severe enough already. Can't he be sentenced to 'time served' or some such thing? Banning him from managing but allowing him to the HOF for his accomplishments as a player doesn't compromise baseballs integrity IMO. He has been banned for 13 years and his HOF induction delayed by at least 10. Wife beaters, druggies and murders sometimes get less
I am all for Pete being in the hall of fame, but I think on his plaque it should say something about his ban and the sircumstances surounding it. I think Pete would agree to that and it could provide a powerfull tool to teach the ills of compulsive gambling Still I think its ridiculous that he recived a lifetime ban, I thought Joe Jacksons ban was even more absurd. Unfortunatly we never got to see what Joe could do on the feild over an entire carrer like we did Rose, so we dont know if he should be in the hall. From everything I have read and heard about Joe Jackson, IF he stayed healthy and played a full carrer he would have been in the Hall
side note: I was watching a Buffalo Bill special yesterday, and someone was reflecting on how strange it is when you get to the Hall of Fame and you walk up to the OJ statue. He said you don't think of the accomplishments. You just think of the "crime".
What if he bet evenly on every Reds game? Wouldn't that have no effect on the integrity of the game, since he would be trying to win eqaully every time he played? What would be the difference between that and an incentive clause for record?
Just read about the Jackson saga. What a mess. Against him are: 1) clearly knew a fix was about (and this was the WS - not just a regular season game) 2) received $5,000 (although he tried to return it). For him are 1) his stats in the series -- hard to argue he was throwing games. 2) failing to act on knowledge of a fix seems a pretty high bar to set. 3) looks like he got lousy advise throughout -- and may have given conflicting testimony. I tend to accept his stats as evidence he wasn't involved. And I feel the knowledge of the fix may be grounds for a suspension, but not necessarily a lifetime ban. But this was a World Series fix, we're talking about here. Nobody's even alleged that Rose fixed any games. I don't think it’s a fair comparison. Based on his averages, though, and given he played 10 years in MLB, wouldn't he be eligible for admission to the HOF if his ban was lifted? It's not that I think EVERYONE should be in the HOF -- the hall is too crowed in my view -- but Rose and Jackson seem very prime candidates. And Rose deserves to be there on his merits -- regardless of whether someone else who is deserving has been overlooked.
Agree Manny If Rose gets in then surely they have to put Shoeless in. Will they open the floodgates???? Didn't Rose agree to a lifetime suspension, it wouls appear has decided to no longer agree to this.
