Skip to content

Pete Rose probably still has a gambling problem

Aug 31, 2010, 10:28 AM EDT

Why Pete Rose as an Expo? I dunno. Everyone forgets about that and I like to remember that kind of random garbage. Got his 4000th hit while playing for Montreal! Anyway:

Back when he was suspended from baseball, Pete Rose admitted to having a gambling addiction and went through counseling.  You’ll be shocked to learn that it didn’t take.  Check out this post and pic from a guy named Paneech, who walked by a table at Caesar’s where Pete Rose was signing autographs while glued to a TV feed of horse races. According to Paneech, the Hit King was basically ignoring fans getting autographs and filled out betting slips in between customers.

Yeah, that stuff I wrote a couple of weeks ago about Rose being a Reds Ambassador? I’m prepared to admit that I may be wrong on that score.

(thanks to reader TBZ for the heads up)

  1. Chris Fiorentino - Aug 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM

    He will never learn. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame, but shouldn’t be allowed to work in MLB anymore because he is a gambling degenerate. However, that shouldn’t stop him from being in the Hall.

  2. BC - Aug 31, 2010 at 10:54 AM

    Why should he care at this point? Guy’s close to 70 years old, he knows he’s not getting into the HOF, so might as well have a good time doing what you want to do. He wants to gamble himself into bankruptcy, go right ahead.

  3. RedsDouche - Aug 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM

    I love Pete but I agree. He should be allowed in the hall but shouldn’t be allowed working with the MLB unless he can prove he kicked the gambling addiction. However, I also argue that cheaters like McGwire shouldn’t be allowed in the game or the hall since they cheated at the game to improve their #’s and “break” records.

  4. acabral33 - Aug 31, 2010 at 11:21 AM

    I’m a huge Baseball fan and I’ve met (really only seen) Pete Rose twice in my life. both time….in VEGAS!…Coincidence? I think not!

  5. The Ol Goaler - Aug 31, 2010 at 11:24 AM

    Gambling on baseball games (which Rose did as Reds manager) is the game’s “unforgivable sin”… because of the danger that a player/manager/umpire would try to lose under pressure from the criminals who took the bets and “won” the gambler’s money. Did Rose have a Hall of Fame career as a player? Of course — but, like “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, Rose should never be elected to the Hall of Fame. Whatever one thinks of PED users, they were trying to improve their performance and win games; at whatever the cost. It will be interesting to see how many votes Barry Bonds gets for the HOF in his first year of eligibility.

  6. THE godfather - Aug 31, 2010 at 11:29 AM

    I watch the races too…and I’ve never placed a bet on them.

  7. CYGNUS X-1 - Aug 31, 2010 at 11:54 AM

    as bc says at this point why should he care.they will never let him in the hall for what he did as a player so why stop doing what makes him happy?if it were me I would stop giving and take back all the stuff I have given the hall.I will never visit it as long as he is not in it so I guess that means I won’t be going.he is still the all time hits leader and did not use steroids to do it.he has paid a high price for what he did now let him enjoy the rest of his life however he wants.

  8. Cluck - Aug 31, 2010 at 11:58 AM

    PEDs were technically legal (though I consider it cheating) in the sport and any player that played during those years should probably be looked at with a grain of salt but if deserving should get into the Hall.
    Gambling on baseball has been banned from the sport for more than a century and unlike any other rule in baseball is posted in every club house at every level (this was true. How does one say that Pete should be in the Hall, even though we even have him saying he bet on games he managed, but say those that used PEDs should never get in the Hall?

  9. John_Michael - Aug 31, 2010 at 12:06 PM

    A lesser know Pavlov study was to say ‘Pete Rose was seen signing autographs’ and to have the test subjects to say something in regards to the Hall of Fame while drooling.

  10. Luke Bean - Aug 31, 2010 at 12:07 PM

    The argument about Rose and the HOF isn’t about whether or not he should be in it, but whether or not his name should be placed on the ballot for election. I believe that even if MLB allowed his name on the ballot, he’d never be voted in because of his lying about his gambling. With that said, yeah, leave the guy alone. Who cares what he does?

  11. Cru11 - Aug 31, 2010 at 12:07 PM

    I think the real crime is that hat.

  12. Jonny5 - Aug 31, 2010 at 12:49 PM

    Rose not only deserves to be in the HOF but it would be a serious mistake to keep him out. He’s the hit leader and may always be. Definately one of the best players of all time. It would do the HOF an injustice to keep him out. It’s funny how a gambler is a “degenerate” and no good while steroid users are applauded. Who says you have to be a great person to get recognized as a great player? I don’t know, I think Rose is getting the shaft. I think he probably still has a gambling problem. I think he’s still one of the best ever at the game. I don’t care if he pisses all of his money away gambling, he still should be in the HOF. It just shows the extent of his sickness that he can’t pay attention to his fans because there are horse races going on. Or maybe he’s just a dick? Who knows? But his numbers are awesome!

  13. smiley - Aug 31, 2010 at 1:09 PM

    He bet on his teams in baseball…..never will be in the hall.

  14. DaBeers - Aug 31, 2010 at 1:25 PM

    I was in Vegas and happened to have lunch at the Cheesecake Factory in the Forum Shops where Pete was signing autographs. Being a huge baseball fan I went into the shop while my girlfriend looked at clothes in the surrounding shops. Pete was more than generous with his time and seemed to enjoy talking to the fans. I don’t consider “Paneech” much of a source here… I didn’t have close to the experience described above. It almost looked to me as if Pete was attempting to make conversation with people who really weren’t sure what to say to him… I was speechless… it was Pete F’n Rose, what do you say to the guy?

  15. Jonny5 - Aug 31, 2010 at 1:33 PM

    Never bet on them to lose though…. that’s the implication of the betting. Throwing the game to the other team for $$$ wasn’t his M.O. It was something he did, which was wrong, but not for the wrong reason. If he had thrown games or even bet against his team to lose, i’d be right with everyone else saying he shouldn’t be considered. That’s not the case though as far as I know.

  16. Jonny5 - Aug 31, 2010 at 1:36 PM

    “it was Pete F’n Rose, what do you say to the guy? “I’ll bet you 4 signed Jerseys to my 100$ that i roll a 6 or better with these dice”. Even if you lose it’ll be a hell of a story to tell the grandkids one day.

  17. The Common Man - Aug 31, 2010 at 2:25 PM

    “Never bet on them to lose though”
    How exactly do we know that, Johnny? Because Rose told us? The same Pete Rose who lied for 15 years about betting on baseball at all? And then about betting on his team? And even if he did only bet on his team, would he have treated Jose Rijo or Tom Browning or Mario Soto differently if he didn’t have money riding on the team?

  18. The Common Man - Aug 31, 2010 at 2:27 PM

    “It would do the HOF an injustice to keep him out.”
    The HOF is doing this to itself, Johnny. The Hall has decided not to let anyone in who is permanently banned from the game. Not MLB. Not the media. Not me or you or anyone else. I think the Hall gets to make that decision.

  19. The Common Man - Aug 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM

    “It’s funny how a gambler is a “degenerate” and no good while steroid users are applauded.”
    I don’t see a lot of people applauding steroid users for being steroid users. Also, a lot of people still cheer for Rose. So, as usual, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on here. That said, the only problem I have with gambling is when it infringes upon the integrity of the game. Which it did with Pete Rose.

  20. JBerardi - Aug 31, 2010 at 2:46 PM

    That “he never bet on his teams to lose” argument is such BS. The rule is, you don’t bet on baseball. Who you bet on and why doesn’t matter. Very simple rule, very easy to follow. Rose didn’t, and now he has to live with the consequences. Again, very simple.

  21. akphenom - Aug 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM

    I was in Vegas in early August. Same place in the forum shops. This is the 2nd time I’d been there when Pete was signing. I have no interest in his autograph, but the stuff in the store was cool. Anyways, I turn and see the TV on horse races. So I tell my buddy, isn’t it ironic that the guy got booted for gambling and yet, while signing autographs has the horse racing feed up. Like, way to hide the problem. Not only that, he had quite a few of the books for the horse race tracks. We figured he was calling in bets. Though I wasn’t smart enough to take a photo of it.

  22. akphenom - Aug 31, 2010 at 3:08 PM

    I was in Vegas in early August. Same place in the forum shops. This is the 2nd time I’d been there when Pete was signing. I have no interest in his autograph, but the stuff in the store was cool. Anyways, I turn and see the TV on horse races. So I tell my buddy, isn’t it ironic that the guy got booted for gambling and yet, while signing autographs has the horse racing feed up. Like, way to hide the problem. Not only that, he had quite a few of the books for the horse race tracks. We figured he was calling in bets. Though I wasn’t smart enough to take a photo of it.

  23. Jonny5 - Aug 31, 2010 at 3:11 PM

    Actually the “degenerate ” came from someone above, and there is a huge amount of support to place The steroid users in the HOF.
    “So, as usual, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on here. That said, the only problem I have with gambling is when it infringes upon the integrity of the game. Which it did with Pete Rose.”
    How did rose infringe on the integrity of the game there common man? show me an example of this if it exists. As far as I know, or anyone else it never effected the outcome of one single game.
    “The Hall has decided not to let anyone in who is permanently banned from the game. Not MLB. Not the media. Not me or you or anyone else. I think the Hall gets to make that decision.”
    I figured that was common knowledge there CM. But as most of us have already agreed, sometimes things aren’t ran the way they should be. I mean Selig is the man, and do you feel he runs Baseball as he should? Common knowledge says most people feel he doesn’t. Yeah, it is what it is, but I don’t have to agree with it, or you about it. There are people already in the HOF who were gambling, drunks, druggies, and whatnot, grandfathered in? that hypocritical imo.
    Here’s my stance. the HOF should be a place of records, not personal issues. If Rose has an asteric next to his name so be it, but he should be there even if he doesn’t “deserve” it. Heck, as much as I hate the whole PED thing, the records stand. Put them in. I’m no baseball expert as you claim to be, but I do know what’s right and what’s wrong. The HOF with no Pete Rose is plain wrong.

  24. The Common Man - Aug 31, 2010 at 3:34 PM

    As I said below, Johnny, the only source we have saying Rose never bet against his team is Rose. And how reliable is he exactly after he lied for 15 years about betting at all. And I don’t think we need to prove he did manage his team differently during games in which he bet on his team, so much as understand that his actions put all of his decisions and actions as the manager of the Reds under a cloud of suspicion. Rose’s gambling calls the integrity of the game into doubt. Again, as I said below, how do we know that he didn’t unduly sacrifice the health of Mario Soto, Jose Rijo, and Tom Browning to help him win his bets? Once more, all we have is Pete Rose’s word, and we’ve come to know what that’s worth.

  25. Jonny5 - Aug 31, 2010 at 4:31 PM

    “how do we know that he didn’t unduly sacrifice the health of Mario Soto, Jose Rijo, and Tom Browning to help him win his bets?” We don’t unless we ask them. True? All I know is he sits on the very top of a list riddled with hall of famers. I also know many of the guys in there gambled, did drugs, and were drunks. And guys who will go to ballot took drugs that more than likely effected their numbers to the positive. I’m not saying he was a saint. He was a bat corking, rule breaker. But what he did while playing was amazing and to keep him out of the HOF is very hypocritical considering who is there already, and who will get in before him. Why does the HOF need to employ a morality clause when dudes are already, or will be in there that did worse? The truth of the matter is he may not deserve the time of day, but he deserves to be recognized for what he did while playing the game. But that’s just my opinion and I know it counts for nill. I think my argument has merit, and while you may not agree, many others do.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Don't count out the Yankees just yet
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (4703)
  2. D. Ortiz (2617)
  3. M. Cuddyer (2208)
  4. Y. Molina (2037)
  5. Y. Darvish (2019)
  1. J. Benoit (1936)
  2. J. Baez (1922)
  3. S. Castro (1869)
  4. G. Richards (1865)
  5. M. Machado (1863)