That’s just semantics. That’s gambling in the colloquial sense. It’s like saying that every time you drive a car, you’re gambling that you won’t be killed in an accident, or every time you make a new dish for dinner, you’re gambling that your family will like it.

It’s not at all the same thing as actually placing a bet on something.

Just from a common sense point of view, if you’re gonna bet-if you’re addicted or whatever-are you going to bet on your team when you’re playing against Johan Santana or Horacio Ramirez? Doesn’t mean you’re not going to go all out just the same.

The blackmail argument is better, but I think specious. Think anyone could have blackmailed Roger Clemens over steroids? Glenn Burke over being gay before he came out (it was him, wasn’t it?)? Chipper Jones for adultery? Steve Garvey with his political career waiting in the wings?

All kinds of people have all kinds of weaknesses and vulnerabilities, without our needing to create new ones through presumption. Assuming that Pete Rose would have been so unduly embarassed over his backing his own team that he would have just capitulated, or somehow lacked the resources to pay a debt–just doesn’t add up for me. It also suggests some lack of familiarity with the way illegal gambling works, as Bob Dylan says, “To live outside the law you must be honest.” Any bookie narking Pete Rose would have been closing down his own joint.

I’m a Mets fan, and I suspect that I wouldn’t like Pete Rose much if I met him. That all being the case, I believe that the way he’s been treated by baseball is more of a disgrace to the game than himself.

Pete Rose is a sociopath. This is extremely clear from his pattern of behavior and especially from his statements about his behavior. He was genuinely puzzled that his autobiography didn’t fix his reputation: “I thought I was remorseful when I needed to be remorseful in here,” as if being remorseful is a verbal stance rather than an emotion you feel.

There is no more bogus set of records in all of professional sport than Rose’s career totals. He was just about the worst player in baseball for the last five years of his career, and the last three he was lucky to have the only manager in the history of MLB who would have played him: himself. Writing yourself into the lineup day after day to the detriment of your team and at a carer cost to younger players who needed the playing time: that’s probably less admirable than betting on your own team. It was an embarrassment to the game.

I am very proud to say I’ve hated the guy from Day 1. Contrary to Keith K.’s assertion, there were a lot of people who were able to identify his style of play as largely self-promotion (no, running to 1B on a BB is just bs, and there’s a reason why he’s the only guy who’s ever done it).

You’re missing a pretty key difference. With the exception of the lady who owned the Indians in “Major League”, I don’t know any owners who actually tried to throw games. (Well, except for the NBA as draft position is being determined, but that’s another story altogether.) You can argue that some owners lost games through mismanagement or by being a cheapskate, but that’s different. That’s not a purposeful intent to lose, it’s just sheer stupidity, and there’s no law against that.

On the other hand, when the manager of the team is a compulsive gambler and chooses not to bet on his team to win some nights, he’s essentially throwing games. He’s saying, “I don’t thnk we’re going to win tonight. Why use my best reliever, or a cleanup hitter who could use a night off in this game? I’ll save them for tomorrow, when I make a bet.” That may not be the textbook definition of throwing games, but it comes awfully close. And it’s absolutely a precursor to exposing himself to blackmail from bookies who tell him to start blatantly throwing games if he wants to avoid paying his losses, or being exposed in the media.

Pete Rose belongs in the Hall, if it’s to be meaningful, and if it’s not then I suggest that we immediately enshrine Hillary Clinton for wearing a baseball cap. And Rudy, he wore it well, right there in the blue collar seats behind the dugout.

It’s funny, many of us now see similarity in how the Clemens supporters are so adamant about him being given the benefit of the doubt. As we were back when Pete chose to take Bart’s agreement. Yes, we were wrong to give Pete the benefit of the doubt. We should have ignored his hustle and love for the game and seen he was of horrible character and that kind of thing should not be rewarded. Well, time will tell when the rocket finally fesses up.

If Pete had not thought he was bigger than the game, and rather decided to admit right away his gambling problem, I doubt there would still be so many irate idiots saying ” One True Rule”. crap.

There is no HOF without Pete Rose!

If you have money on the current game and none on tomorrow’s, which relievers do you go to with a five-run lead in the 8th? Sometimes, trying harder to win today can hurt your chances tomorrow.