I know what you are thinking. How can I, someone who in no way tolerates or condones gambling of any sort, begin to argue that placing wager after wager on the game of baseball doesn't matter? It seems inappropriate coming from someone of that background. Well, I want you to note that I'm not asking whether it mattered at all, but whether it matters anymore.Any discussion of betting and baseball instantly harvests a sickening feeling in the stomach of baseball historians who truly treasure the sanctity of the pastime. Two simple words - "Betting" and "Baseball" - when linked together zombify us into a stupor impenetrable by reason or explanation. Nothing seems to be able to beat back the dreaded subject of the Black-Sox Scandal as it looms like a dark cloud in our minds forbidding any further details from altering our instinctive, trauma-induced verdict of 'GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!'. However, if one is able to quell such biased leanings for a moment, we may see a stark contrast in the instance of Pete Rose betting on baseball and certain members of the 1919 "Black Sox" team who accepted a bribe from gamblers for throwing the game - losing on purpose. Yes, I think you've guessed what I'm getting at.
Pete Rose never stooped to the level of altering the course of a game, performing at anything less than 100%, or asking anyone on his staff to do so. He was not looking for a 'sure thing' to bet on, by orchestrating an intentional loss so he could bet against his team or even for the opposing team. In an interview in 2007 Rose said,
"I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team, I believe in my team. I did everything in my power every night to win that game."
This puts an interesting differential into the equation when you are discussing how this relates to the act of betting on baseball. True, all members of the baseball organization are made well aware of the consequences of gambling on the game. Yet, does banishment for life - the same sentencing handed down to the eight members of the "Black Sox" charged with throwing the 1919 World Series - seem an equal and just ruling for Pete Rose? Hal McCoy made a crucial statement that seems to paint Pete's betting for his team as black as the Sox's efforts to lose intentionally. He said that, "a major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game." Well I have a major problem with that flawed reasoning. Rose bet on his team to win. What manager in his right mind doesn't make decisions that could enhance his team's chances of winning? If such a manager were to exist we would gladly kick him out of baseball for jeopardizing a team's competitive ability. As much as Pete Rose liked to win he couldn't fathom betting against his team. He wagered that his team, the Reds, would win which had no more effect on the game than would the fan in the stands who bets his buddy ten dollars that the Reds will beat their opponent. It's no different than the group of kids down at the local school baseball diamond who take such pride in their personal abilities they are not afraid to call out to their heckling friend on the pitcher's mound, "You don't think I can do it, huh? I bet you dinner at [insert local eatery] that I smash your 'fastball' over the fence!" In the end, money is exchanged - or perhaps dinner is paid for by the loser of the bet - based on the turnout of play which was neither aided nor inhibited by the bet placed.
Pete was not a fool, at least in the matter of calculating the odds. Yes, in the matter of betting on baseball he was indeed foolish, but need I regress? If Pete Rose truly was convinced that he had an 'over .500' team then he would win in the long run by betting on his team every night. As long as he bet consistently and the team met expectations, his bet would turn out in favor of 'the house', such as in seasons 1987-1988 when the team averaged .528 over that two year period. However, like most people passionate about something I would venture to guess that Pete was not consistent in his betting. He likely bet different amounts depending on what he had in the bank and how much he liked the odds against the team they were matched up with. He may have even been greedy on occasion and made an 'all-in' bet and lost a huge chunk of change.
That's the dark side of gambling which encapsulates why baseball has every right to discipline those who take to the practice. It invites greed and temptation to tweak the game in a way that favors your pocketbook to a sport trying to uphold integrity, discipline, and dignity in a world that falls far from that description. Yet, what is the purported reason that discipline is administered? Is it not to train, correct, and refine those who receive it? Or are we to believe that no one can learn from their mistakes and thus we must inflict a merciless dose of everlasting banishment for every offense?
As much as I admire Pete Rose, I must be honest on this point: I agree with baseball's initial decree to cast Pete Rose out of baseball indefinitely. That may shock you as I'm in the middle of arguing why he should be allowed back into the game. However, I am in no way so fanatical about the man that I can look past a grave error in judgement, and that is when he refused to admit the charge against him of gambling on baseball. How can you be confident that someone will not repeat their mistake if they have not acknowledged it and outlined a process in which they plan to eradicate the habit from their lifestyle? I feel that strong punishment should be leveled against those who know the consequences for their actions and yet do not admit to their wrongdoing.
Enter performance enhancing drugs. While I agree that gambling should not be tolerated, I believe that performance enhancing drugs are even more grotesque in that they unfailingly alter the course of games causing the true fan to always call certain plays, records, and even entire seasons into question. I find it so interesting that even though the potential for performance enhancing drugs to tarnish the game is just as great if not more so than betting on baseball, those who are caught taking them are simply suspended for a certain number of games and then allowed to play again. This is even when they deny they did anything wrong after testing positive to a banned substance! The player doesn't even have to admit that he did anything wrong or make a public apology and he's allowed back into the game!Regardless of whether Pete Rose has been treated equally and fairly in the administration of discipline, the fact is that he now has admitted his mistake, apologized, and said it is something he deeply regrets and plans to never repeat. To date he has served a 3599 game suspension. How does that stack up against the 50 games Ryan Braun is facing for allegedly taking a performance enhancing substance in a year when he put up MVP numbers? How about the 100 game suspension Manny Ramirez received last year for a second violation in two years!?
If baseball's 'Puritans' are insistent in bringing out the pitchforks anew to go witch hunting could we at least look for someone who has violated the sanctity of the game of baseball within the past two decades? Or will they never tire of burning the same 'witch' at the stake in Pete Rose?
The time has come to re-evaluate the necessity for Pete Rose's punishment to continue any longer and realize that it has already accomplished it's purpose. Any continuance will only serve in deflating the joy of his loyal fans while allowing the controversy surrounding his banishment to continue to hang over the game. The time has come to reinstate Pete Rose into the game of baseball.- Axon
Official entry in the ScottsPicks.com Writing Contest
No comments:
Post a Comment