In my classes, with frequent citations to John Dowd’s comprehensive 1989 report investigating the scandal, I explain why the uncertainty of outcome inherent in honestly competitive sport disappears when players and coaches bet on the games they are involved in—even if such wagers are only “to win.” I also read the following excerpt from Michael Sokolove’s textured biography of Rose:
Betting on the game is baseball’s ultimate taboo because it has the potential, as nothing else does, of wrecking the sport … It calls into question the integrity of the competition, our faith that the winner will be determined by the best efforts of each player on the field.
My classroom exchanges on the topic, reflective of the Pete Rose debate that persists today, usually proceed as follows (my students’ typical questions and objections are in bold).
Pete Rose only bet on the Reds to win when he was the team’s manager. He believed in his club. How can that justify lifetime banishment from baseball?
Major League Baseball Rule 21(d) is clear. Here is the relevant portion:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
But rules in baseball are selectively enforced all the time—just look at what happened with the pick-up-the-rug-and-repeatedly-sweep steroid debacle. Pete Rose didn’t throw games like the Chicago White Sox players did in the 1919 World Series. Rose always tried to win when he managed the Cincinnati Reds. What is wrong with that? Look: Footnote #3 of the Dowd Report is clear on this point.
No evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds.
But he didn’t bet on the Reds to win every game.
What do you mean?
Rose’s betting slips, written in his own handwriting, as well as other evidence, indicate that he only bet on certain Reds’ games.
Why does that matter? He may not have been betting on all the games, but he still wanted to win every game.
It matters for two reasons. First, when Rose did not bet on the Reds, his inaction was a signal to his bookies that he wasn’t very confident in that game. Those bookies may have used this inside information to place a bet against the Reds. This doesn’t mean the game was fixed, but is reflective of Rose’s state of mind. He was compromised. Second, his wager on certain games, but not others, may have influenced the way he made decisions as a manager.
What do you mean?
If he had a wager on that night’s game, he could be more inclined to burn through his bullpen in a less-than-optimal way. He may have used pinch hitters and pinch runners differently. In an all-out-effort to win a single wagered-upon game, he could, in turn, be sacrificing the team’s chances in a number of future games. Similarly, in games where he didn’t bet at all, he may rest certain players so they are fresh in the next game, when he was wagering on the Reds.