Why was Rickey Henderson not banned for stealing all those bases?

Not only was Pete Rose the hit king, he was also the whining king. The guy crapped on the integrity of the game when he was a manager, lied about it, fessed up when it was shown how much he was lying, agreed to a ban, then spent the rest of his years complaining how badly he was being treated.

Put him in the HOF, I guess. I didn't really have plans to leave any money in Cooperstown, and this doesn't change that. But this doesn't improve my image of MLB.

Burdizzo said:

---

Not only was Pete Rose the hit king, he was also the whining king. The guy crapped on the integrity of the game when he was a manager, lied about it, fessed up when it was shown how much he was lying, agreed to a ban, then spent the rest of his years complaining how badly he was being treated.

Put him in the HOF, I guess. I didn't really have plans to leave any money in Cooperstown, and this doesn't change that. But this doesn't improve my image of MLB.

---

Burdizzo balked.

should stay banned. they are just embarrassed of how much money they take from draft kings etc and advertise for gambling while keeping him banned.

The penalties for Rose were in part because he was such a big-time figure in the sport. He was an example for others in the sport not to gamble, because MLB took that to be a serious offense. If Pete Rose was barred from the sport and kept out of the HoF, what would they do to other players caught gambling?

On a side note, it's an indictment on our culture today that character means so little.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

Being banned from baseball is the reason he wasn't eligible for the HOF.

---

This is false, a lifetime ban from future employment and MLB games/functions and the permanently ineligible list for the HOF are two different things. Moreover, there are players that have been in the HOF and banned from the game simultaneously.

---

In 1991, shortly before Rose's first year of Hall of Fame eligibility, the Hall's board decided any player on MLB's permanently ineligible list would also be ineligible for election.

He was not in the HOF because he was banned from baseball.

He was permanently ineligible to return to baseball and he was permanently ineligible because he was on that list.

The Pete Rose Rule did not state anything about what he did to become permanently ineligible...

I felt bad for elderly Pete Rose making this so important to him, as though he really had no other sense of worth/love in his life.

BBRex said:

---

The penalties for Rose were in part because he was such a big-time figure in the sport. He was an example for others in the sport not to gamble, because MLB took that to be a serious offense. If Pete Rose was barred from the sport and kept out of the HoF, what would they do to other players caught gambling?

On a side note, it's an indictment on our culture today that character means so little.

---

Agreed. We've become a utilitarian society, even in many conservative circles.

What a stupid thing to ding a legend for. It is not like he fixed even a single game.

Why do people have a bug up their asses about gambling?? Stock market is a big gamble we all indulge in every day.

Everyone wants to make money. So did Rose. If he gambled against his own team, one might suspect that he fixed/tanked. Not when he bet to win.

Sorry. Put the man in the HoF.

Is that you next to him?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The group of writers is a petulant little group with long memories. That is why he's out

---

This is also true.

We still don't know the full extent of his gambling because he never fully admitted. He definitely gambled as a player but never admitted it. He only admitted to gambling on his team's games as a manager to sell a book after denying it for close to 15 years. So I don't think one can say "he never bet against his team" when to his dying day could never even admit what we do know. He only admitted things when there was a buck in it for him.

jja79 said:

---

Friend played in MLB. There's a sign at the door of every locker room that says anyone caught gambling on baseball will be banned from baseball. Rose knew the consequences and chose to risk it.

---

He certainly knew but I have to wonder about the signs you mention. Were those present during his playing/managing days, or did they come about as a result of Pete Rose?

usmcbrooks said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

But, having been around minor celebs in LA,, it's common to have weirdos on the fringe to take care of things that the celeb wouldn't want to be caught doing themselves. Whether that's girls or drugs, etc.

---

And thats how Ohtani got away with gambling on baseball.

---

Exactly. Guess he gets a pass because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

---

Now that's funny

Only thing that matters is if he changed the result of a game with his actions not related to playing/coaching baseball.

So let's say he runs out his starter an inning longer or pitches a reliever on a 3rd day to win a game he bet on, but in a 162 grind season, that hurts his team. I just don't give a pass to "he only bet on them", and again, he was the very definition of a degenerate gambler and compulsive liar. Of all of his of playing and managing, I'm not convinced he never bet against. May have very well just been a bit more careful how he did it. Also a good way to get some debt forgiven that is not "betting against" them

I am fine if the HOF puts him in. I just don't buy all the defenses. Put him in for being a great player, but spare me the excuses on his gambling. I also don't put it on MLB - they were right to have him on the ineligible list until his last day.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

the issue with gambling in pete rose position as manager is it has a direct influence over the actual game. if he uses a relieve longer than normal to cover a bet or uses a different lineup to influence the game.

rose shouldn't have bet on baseball, he should have been banned, but i think he should be included in the hall of fame along with shoeless joe and a few others. i like the idea of after death they can be included.

---

Pete died knowing he would never be in the hall of fame and would be remembered for the reason why.

Nothing can undo that, and because of that, I'm good with Manfred bending the knee to Trump.

infinity ag said:

---

What a stupid thing to ding a legend for. It is not like he fixed even a single game.

Why do people have a bug up their asses about gambling?? Stock market is a big gamble we all indulge in every day.

Everyone wants to make money. So did Rose. If he gambled against his own team, one might suspect that he fixed/tanked. Not when he bet to win.

Sorry. Put the man in the HoF.

---

If you place money on something knowing someone has rigged it, it isn't really gambling. If you don't think an even is rigged, place money on it, and lose money because it is rigged, you would be pretty pissed off because you just got scammed.


Furthermore, the "Pete never bet against his own team" argument is a deflection. Ok, maybe he never bet against his team, but there were other things he could have done to tip off the gambling community that he fixed other stats within the game that are often wagered on. The concept that he was involved with gambling at all, his status as a preeminent competitor, and his blatant lying about is why he got banned.

I also find the comparison to the juicers to be hollow. Guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa took PEDs to improve their own performance. Pete Rose gambled on the activity he participated in to line his own pockets and the pockets of others. The juicers cheated so they could win more. Gamblers don't care who wins or loses as long as they make money off the other suckers who gamble. Big difference, IMO.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Is that you next to him?

---

Pete Rose and Tokyo Rose

MLB doesn't survive with the perception of being WWE on spikes. Nobody is going to watch three hours of baseball if they believe it is rigged. And it doesn't matter if it's MLB or just the players and managers who fixed the games.

Burdizzo said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

What a stupid thing to ding a legend for. It is not like he fixed even a single game.

Why do people have a bug up their asses about gambling?? Stock market is a big gamble we all indulge in every day.

Everyone wants to make money. So did Rose. If he gambled against his own team, one might suspect that he fixed/tanked. Not when he bet to win.

Sorry. Put the man in the HoF.

---

If you place money on something knowing someone has rigged it, it isn't really gambling. If you don't think an even is rigged, place money on it, and lose money because it is rigged, you would be pretty pissed off because you just got scammed.


Furthermore, the "Pete never bet against his own team" argument is a deflection. Ok, maybe he never bet against his team, but there were other things he could have done to tip off the gambling community that he fixed other stats within the game that are often wagered on. The concept that he was involved with gambling at all, his status as a preeminent competitor, and his blatant lying about is why he got banned.

I also find the comparison to the juicers to be hollow. Guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa took PEDs to improve their own performance. Pete Rose gambled on the activity he participated in to line his own pockets and the pockets of others. The juicers cheated so they could win more. Gamblers don't care who wins or loses as long as they make money off the other suckers who gamble. Big difference, IMO.

---

This

Burdizzo said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

What a stupid thing to ding a legend for. It is not like he fixed even a single game.

Why do people have a bug up their asses about gambling?? Stock market is a big gamble we all indulge in every day.

Everyone wants to make money. So did Rose. If he gambled against his own team, one might suspect that he fixed/tanked. Not when he bet to win.

Sorry. Put the man in the HoF.

---

If you place money on something knowing someone has rigged it, it isn't really gambling. If you don't think an even is rigged, place money on it, and lose money because it is rigged, you would be pretty pissed off because you just got scammed.


Furthermore, the "Pete never bet against his own team" argument is a deflection. Ok, maybe he never bet against his team, but there were other things he could have done to tip off the gambling community that he fixed other stats within the game that are often wagered on. The concept that he was involved with gambling at all, his status as a preeminent competitor, and his blatant lying about is why he got banned.

I also find the comparison to the juicers to be hollow. Guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa took PEDs to improve their own performance. Pete Rose gambled on the activity he participated in to line his own pockets and the pockets of others. The juicers cheated so they could win more. Gamblers don't care who wins or loses as long as they make money off the other suckers who gamble. Big difference, IMO.

---

My basic point is - did he change the outcome of a game outside of playing well/poorly or coaching well/poorly? I don't think he did. He clearly said he never bet against his own side to lose. I listened to him come on the Jimmy Connors podcast last year. He said that he did lie about it and regretted it. But he never tanked or threw a game.

So in my opinion, he did not do anything wrong to deserve banning. He is a legend because of his achievements which were not fake and no cheating involved. That is all that matters. Everything else is the MLB virtue signaling.

infinity ag said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

What a stupid thing to ding a legend for. It is not like he fixed even a single game.

Why do people have a bug up their asses about gambling?? Stock market is a big gamble we all indulge in every day.

Everyone wants to make money. So did Rose. If he gambled against his own team, one might suspect that he fixed/tanked. Not when he bet to win.

Sorry. Put the man in the HoF.

---

If you place money on something knowing someone has rigged it, it isn't really gambling. If you don't think an even is rigged, place money on it, and lose money because it is rigged, you would be pretty pissed off because you just got scammed.


Furthermore, the "Pete never bet against his own team" argument is a deflection. Ok, maybe he never bet against his team, but there were other things he could have done to tip off the gambling community that he fixed other stats within the game that are often wagered on. The concept that he was involved with gambling at all, his status as a preeminent competitor, and his blatant lying about is why he got banned.

I also find the comparison to the juicers to be hollow. Guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa took PEDs to improve their own performance. Pete Rose gambled on the activity he participated in to line his own pockets and the pockets of others. The juicers cheated so they could win more. Gamblers don't care who wins or loses as long as they make money off the other suckers who gamble. Big difference, IMO.

---

My basic point is - did he change the outcome of a game outside of playing well/poorly or coaching well/poorly? I don't think he did. He clearly said he never bet against his own side to lose. I listened to him come on the Jimmy Connors podcast last year. He said that he did lie about it and regretted it. But he never tanked or threw a game.

So in my opinion, he did not do anything wrong to deserve banning. He is a legend because of his achievements which were not fake and no cheating involved. That is all that matters. Everything else is the MLB virtue signaling.

---

Look up the topic of point shaving before returning to this discussion. A person doesn't have to "tank a game" in order for this to be an issue. Wins and losses are not the only thing people bet on.

infinity ag said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

What a stupid thing to ding a legend for. It is not like he fixed even a single game.

Why do people have a bug up their asses about gambling?? Stock market is a big gamble we all indulge in every day.

Everyone wants to make money. So did Rose. If he gambled against his own team, one might suspect that he fixed/tanked. Not when he bet to win.

Sorry. Put the man in the HoF.

---

If you place money on something knowing someone has rigged it, it isn't really gambling. If you don't think an even is rigged, place money on it, and lose money because it is rigged, you would be pretty pissed off because you just got scammed.


Furthermore, the "Pete never bet against his own team" argument is a deflection. Ok, maybe he never bet against his team, but there were other things he could have done to tip off the gambling community that he fixed other stats within the game that are often wagered on. The concept that he was involved with gambling at all, his status as a preeminent competitor, and his blatant lying about is why he got banned.

I also find the comparison to the juicers to be hollow. Guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa took PEDs to improve their own performance. Pete Rose gambled on the activity he participated in to line his own pockets and the pockets of others. The juicers cheated so they could win more. Gamblers don't care who wins or loses as long as they make money off the other suckers who gamble. Big difference, IMO.

---

My basic point is - did he change the outcome of a game outside of playing well/poorly or coaching well/poorly? I don't think he did. He clearly said he never bet against his own side to lose. I listened to him come on the Jimmy Connors podcast last year. He said that he did lie about it and regretted it. But he never tanked or threw a game.

So in my opinion, he did not do anything wrong to deserve banning. He is a legend because of his achievements which were not fake and no cheating involved. That is all that matters. Everything else is the MLB virtue signaling.

---

He kind of looked like Jimmy Connors

"The compulsive liar said he didn't so I must believe it. Nevermind the lies he told for years and years until there was a chance to make some $$$ of an admission, and the lies we know he was telling to his death"

Again, I'm fine with him being in the HOF due to what he did accomplish on the field. Just spare me the gambling defenses and justifications. He was as dirty as the day is long there and lied about it until death

infinity ag said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

What a stupid thing to ding a legend for. It is not like he fixed even a single game.

Why do people have a bug up their asses about gambling?? Stock market is a big gamble we all indulge in every day.

Everyone wants to make money. So did Rose. If he gambled against his own team, one might suspect that he fixed/tanked. Not when he bet to win.

Sorry. Put the man in the HoF.

---

If you place money on something knowing someone has rigged it, it isn't really gambling. If you don't think an even is rigged, place money on it, and lose money because it is rigged, you would be pretty pissed off because you just got scammed.


Furthermore, the "Pete never bet against his own team" argument is a deflection. Ok, maybe he never bet against his team, but there were other things he could have done to tip off the gambling community that he fixed other stats within the game that are often wagered on. The concept that he was involved with gambling at all, his status as a preeminent competitor, and his blatant lying about is why he got banned.

I also find the comparison to the juicers to be hollow. Guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa took PEDs to improve their own performance. Pete Rose gambled on the activity he participated in to line his own pockets and the pockets of others. The juicers cheated so they could win more. Gamblers don't care who wins or loses as long as they make money off the other suckers who gamble. Big difference, IMO.

---

My basic point is - did he change the outcome of a game outside of playing well/poorly or coaching well/poorly? I don't think he did. He clearly said he never bet against his own side to lose. I listened to him come on the Jimmy Connors podcast last year. He said that he did lie about it and regretted it. But he never tanked or threw a game.

So in my opinion, he did not do anything wrong to deserve banning. He is a legend because of his achievements which were not fake and no cheating involved. That is all that matters. Everything else is the MLB virtue signaling.

---

This is wrong on so many levels.

First of all, it is not "virtue signaling" for MLB to protect the integrity of the game. If the public has any reason to believe that games are not legit, they will stop watching and their business evaporates. The mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient to significantly hurt the game, much less actual impropriety.

Further, the fact that Rose "never bet against his team" is beyond irrelevant. He didn't bet on the Reds to win every day of every season during which he was betting on baseball. So the question becomes what games didn't he bet on and why? On games where he had money on the game did he make questionable decisions that could impact the following games that maybe he didn't bet on (i.e. did he treat a relatively unimportant game in the middle of May like it was game 7 of the World Series because he had money on the game, what relievers and substitutions did he use in a game and did using those pitchers in those situations make them unavailable for the next game that he didn't bet on, etc.).

Also, when you are betting illegally through bookies, etc. you are necessarily involving yourself with shady, criminal by definition type people. Those people now have leverage on you to get you to do things that benefit them so that they don't rat you out to the powers that be.

There are very strong ethical considerations at play beyond the simple, surface-level considerations of "I gamble, why can't Pete?". As mentioned earlier, the rules regarding players and managers gambling are posted in literally every locker room in the league, and I would not be surprised at all to find that the league and its individual teams conduct regular additional trainings throughout the season to remind and reinforce those rules.

Once Rose started betting on baseball and on his own team, every single decision from starting lineups, pitching decisions, injuries and recovery times for players, in-game decisions and substitutions (or lack thereof) and everything else is questionable.

There is a reason Rose lied when confronted about his actions: he knew it was in violation of the rules. He knew he would be in severe trouble with the league if he was caught. His arrogance made him believe he was bigger than the game and the rules didn't apply. That sounds kind of similar to the complaints on this board about "rules for thee but not for me", there being a 2-tiered justice system for politicians and celebrities and "it's (D)ifferent".

MLB basically asks three things of you. Don’t gamble on baseball, don’t do steroids, and don’t have sex with children. Pete Rose did at least two of those things https://t.co/23eDRzbecv

— #1 JD Davis Hate Account (@GregsBadTweets) May 13, 2025