Pete Rose's admission of guilt

MorrellMan

Article in the LA Times today - apparently Rose showed up at a grade school in Glendale the other day and fielded a barrage of questions from kids and their families. One dad asked "Will you ever be in the Hall of Fame?" and Pete said "They won't let me in now because I bet on baseball."

Did I miss something or is this the first time he's fessed up?

Mac53

I think he fessed up in a TV interview in about January of 2004 that he bet on baseball and bet on the games he was managing.

stevek

Pete's got more fessing up to do yet, including I believe the probability that he also bet on baseball while he was a player - that he has not fessed up to.

Mac53

Yeah. Plus he needs to apologize for trying to ruin the repuatation of Giamatti.



Who, as it turns out, was right all along.

Axtell

<< <i>Yeah. Plus he needs to apologize for trying to ruin the repuatation of Giamatti.


Who, as it turns out, was right all along. >>



Giamatti did that to himself...he turned the investigation into a witch hunt for his own fame and notoriety.

There are far worse players in the hall than Pete, and whatever Rose did off the field should have no bearing on his induction into the hall. The HoF is NOT directly associated with MLB, therefore any penalties imposed by MLB do not apply to the HoF (like being banned from baseball for life).

Mac53

Then why is Joe Jackson not in the HOF? It's not a question of what kind of person Rose is--it has been a standard ever since KM Landis: betting on baseball is the mortal sin of the game. That's the way it should be. Rose was an incomparable player, but he broke the one rule that's not allowed to be broken. And it sure doesn't help that he lied about for so many years.

lclugza

Betting on baseball should not be a mortal sin, but a baseball owner keeping false financial records (as the late Marge Schott, and perhaps other team owners) was accused of doing) should be a mortal sin, and engaging in collusion to fix salaries after they had sworn not to, as many team owners did, should be a mortal sin, and refusing to finish a season in progress or even try to negotiate to end the strike (as baseball owners did in 1994) should be a mortal sin.

DeutscherGeist

Pete was in Glendale? WOW, that's my home. I did not hear about this.

You mean the one in California, right?

There is one in Arizona, Missouri, and other places too.

Mac53

I don't follow the transition from the propriety of Rose being in the HOF to the owners' business practices. In any event, the reason that betting on baseball is and should be a mortal sin is because it is the one thing that can kill the game. Baseball will survive money disputes, it will survive evil business practices, and it will survive the steroid scandle. It even survived 1919, only because of KM Landis and the amazing Babe Ruth. But, if people ever come to believe that the games are being decided, not by the skill of the players and their desire to win, but by some other motivation (wagers), then baseball will die. There's only one thing that Rose had to not do--bet on baseball. It's not like this was some obscure technicality. If baseball does not shun participants who break that rule, then it will fade away.

1420sports

Pete's got more fessing up to do yet, including I believe the probability that he also bet on baseball while he was a player - that he has not fessed up to.

stevek - no offense, but huh??? There were never any allegations of this, and even Dowd never thought he had bet on games as a player.

Axtell, good points - we do agree on a few tings

Axtell

Rose didn't bet on baseball as a player...the reports and countless investigations proved this. He bet on games as a manager, but it was never proven that he bet on games he managed.

As a manager, there is little you can do that would 'throw' a game. Any wildly irrational moves would be widely publicized, and would require the players complete cooperation to do...yes, highly unlikely.

What I find most hyopcritical is how we frown on Pete's gambling, but then watch the world series of poker, 'Tilt' and the countless other gambling shows that flood the tv waves these days.

Pete deserves to be in the HoF for his merits as a player, and absolutely should not have that taken away because of things that transpired OFF the field. No, it doesn't help the fact that he denied it for so long. Yes, he should have come clean and admitted it. But admittedly he was scared and didn't want to jeopardize his chances at the hall. Once he started down the road of denial, it was tough for him to get off it.

1420sports

As a Phan of his, I am still hoping he makes it in.

Buckwheat

<< <i>I don't follow the transition from the propriety of Rose being in the HOF to the owners' business practices. In any event, the reason that betting on baseball is and should be a mortal sin is because it is the one thing that can kill the game. Baseball will survive money disputes, it will survive evil business practices, and it will survive the steroid scandle. It even survived 1919, only because of KM Landis and the amazing Babe Ruth. But, if people ever come to believe that the games are being decided, not by the skill of the players and their desire to win, but by some other motivation (wagers), then baseball will die. There's only one thing that Rose had to not do--bet on baseball. It's not like this was some obscure technicality. If baseball does not shun participants who break that rule, then it will fade away. >>



Well said.

Axtell, gambling in general is not the problem, so World Series of poker, etc. has nothing to do with it. It is the integrity of the games that matters.

Vintagegolfcollector

The integrity of the game is important but the game has changed considerably since the early 1900's. Players are less likely to throw games for money now that they are all millionaires. Look at how often players are willing to take a cut in pay now in exchange for playing for a contender. The boys from the early 1900s barely made a living so it's understandable the concern for throwing games for money. Besides, the HOF should be for what players did on the field. Pete Rose should be banned from coaching and the likes but he belongs in the Hall.

1420sports

It is the integrity of the games that matters.

I agree, and Pete Rose paid his price. He was banished from the game.

He should be in the Hall.

Axtell

Integrity of the game? I don't think anyone on the field epitomized it more than Charlie Hustle.

The HoF is for accomplishments on the field.

Mac53

Ax, you make good points, but we arrive at different conclusions. Would you also install Joe Jackson in the HOF? But more importantly, from my viewpoint, is that everyone in the game is aware of the no betting rule, and knows the consequences. It's an absolute. Some things have to be absolute. Where is your line drawn? What would Rose have to do, with his magnificent statistics, to be barred from the HOF? Bet on a game he was managing? Bet on a game he was managing and trying to lose the game to win the bet? Bet on one game he was playing in? Bet on one game he was playing in and trying to lose the game to win the bet? Two games? Ten? One hundred? Kill an umpire during a game? Kill two umpires? Or are we to say, as long as your stats on the field are good, you are to be given the honor of the HOF, no matter what else? Perhaps I'm simply too narrow minded, but if one has been banned from the game for breaking the one absolute rule, there is no reason why that person should be honored by "fame."

Axtell

The difference between what Joe Jackson did and what Rose are, on the surface similar, are in actuality quite different. Like i said before, as a manager, your ability to alter the outcome of a number of games is going to be very limited, and there was no proof he ever bet on his own games. Joe took money as a player to throw the game. Night and day difference.

Pete Rose didn't bet on games as a player, therefore his stats and playing time should not be called out on his HoF worthiness. Yes he was barred from baseball, but the HoF is not MLB owned. In actuality, a barring for life from the sport does not automatically preclude one from being in the HoF, as it's not a MLB enterprise.

stevek

<<< stevek - no offense, but huh??? There were never any allegations of this, and even Dowd never thought he had bet on games as a player. >>>

1420 - It pains me to think this because I like Rose and we'll never of course forget 1980 - but I do believe that Rose most probably bet on baseball while he was a player. Every time he is asked this question, it just seems like he isn't telling the truth. Sort of like the way OJ explains how he didn't kill Nicole - that same type of "beating around the bush" answers of them thinking that they're so clever that they're fooling everybody. Again just my belief...I like Rose except for the fact that he is an admitted liar - so nothing is off the table.

Back to the Hall - Rose has only one chance of getting in and this still might not be good enough but it would give him a chance - completely fess up to everything while under a polygraph exam - no holds barred - and also he must give up any and all association with gambling. He is a horse racing owner and actively bets at the horse racetracks. It doesn't matter that its legal - it's still gambling.

Axtell

<< <i><<< stevek - no offense, but huh??? There were never any allegations of this, and even Dowd never thought he had bet on games as a player. >>>

Back to the Hall - Rose has only one chance of getting in and this still might not be good enough but it would give him a chance - completely fess up to everything while under a polygraph exam - no holds barred - and also he must give up any and all association with gambling. He is a horse racing owner and actively bets at the horse racetracks. It doesn't matter that its legal - it's still gambling. >>



I think that would be excessive for anyone to accept...so you are saying he wouldn't be allowed to buy lottery tickets, participate in march madness brackets, anything? That seems excessive at best, killing someone's fun at worst.

Selig could make a bold move and say Rose has done more than enough time for this. But we all know Selig is a spineless, worthless monkey-boy of the owners, who will never do anything pre-emptive, proactive, or otherwise original. He's a whipping boy of the owners. Is it any surprise that congress has had to get involved in the whole steroid scandal?

Rose should be in the hall immediately. Rose exemplified on the field what a player with true determination could overcome any shortcomings in physical gifts. His accolades on the field should be honored for all time.

Mac53

Well, clearly this dead horse ain't been beat enough. Ax, you never answered my question: in your opinion, is there any misconduct which should bar a player who would otherwise be eligible, from the HOF? If so, what is it? Everyone agrees that Rose's on the field play qualifies him for the HOF. Being the best ever or being barely qualified to get in doesn't change the question of whether a player's "non-statistic" life disqualifies him from entry into the HOF. And if there is any misconduct which would disqualify a player from the HOF, then I can't imagine who could be more disqualified than Rose: after all, he's a convicted felon. Plus, he committed the one mortal sin by betting on baseball while a participant. The rule doesn't say you can't bet on baseball if you then do something to throw the game. The rule says, don't bet on baseball. Rose defied and mocked the game for years by lying about his own conduct. As a witness he has no credibility whatsoever. Rose was smart enough to cover his tracks while betting as a manager and the evidence of that wasn't exactly overwhelming. Yet, that evidence was correct. The fact that no evidence has come to light that Rose bet while a player should make no diffence to anyone. And besides, that's irrelevant. The rule doesn't say don't bet on baseball while you're a player, then afterwards you can. The rule says, don't bet on baseball. And, don't forget, the investigation was concluded by Rose AGREEING TO LIFETIME INELIGIBILITY. The rules of the HOF say that ineligible players don't get in.

Axtell

<< <i>Well, clearly this dead horse ain't been beat enough. Ax, you never answered my question: in your opinion, is there any misconduct which should bar a player who would otherwise be eligible, from the HOF? >>



Should OJ Simpson be in the hall of fame?

He committed a double murder (though never convicted in a court of law). But this happened outside his playing days and after his career was over. Do we disallow him now?

The hall of fame is full of unsavory characters...it's widely known that Ty Cobb was a vicious racist, who routinely slid into bases with spikes exposed with the intention of injuring the opposing player. He went into stands to assault hecklers, etc. etc...should we disallow him from the hall too?

It's ignorant at best to think that Pete doesn't belong in the hall. It's easy to sit and preach about what a bad man he is. But like any addictive personality, his addiction overcame common sense. I am not trying to excuse his gambling, or trying to say it's ok. But how many second chances are alcoholics and drug addicts given second, third, seventh (hello Steve Howe) chances to rehabilitate? It's ironic that on one hand the american public embraces gambling (super bowl pools, march madness bracket pools, world series of poker, etc. etc.) but then we try to condemn a man who's weakness and compulsion is gambling? Don't you find that the least bit hypocritical?

I won't get into an argument on the effects of mainstream gambling on the youth...that's an entirely different topic. But you need to only look at the huge numbers of participants in the WSoP and the number of youths getting involved in poker events at school/home, and you will see the effects.

Mac53

<< <i>It's ignorant at best to think that Pete doesn't belong in the hall. >>



I find it best to rise above perjorative challenges to my analytical ability, and, rather than respond in kind, to instead keep every discourse on a civil level. It only improves the quality of discussion, and leads to clearer thinking, without the sort of irascible ad hominem personal attacks on others which flow so tempingly from disdainful personal commentary.

Axtell, you have cooties!

Right now, Pete doesn't belong in the hall because he doesn't meet the qualifications. To be installed in the HOF, one must be eligible. Pete agreed to lifetime ineligibility. Like so many other things in his life, perhaps he should have thought about it a little more before he did it.

Axtell

Mac you dance as well as anyone at dodging issues. What about my question about OJ? Should be a HoFer?

What about Ty Cobb?

Your attempt at dodging issues would make any politician proud...instead of attempting an intelligent round of discussion, you focus on one point and felt it was an attack. Being ignorant wasn't an attack...hell, all it means is you don't know. But I am sure in your infinite wisdom, you knew that, right? Calling someone ignorant isn't an insult, it's just a way of telling them to go do some more research, as they appear to be uninformed.

Whatever your personal feelings are against Rose (and it's obvious you have a deep contempt of the man), you haven't shown me anything that shows his accomplishments on the field would preclude him from being in the hall of fame.

Just as a side note...since the HoF is not run or owned by MLB, the eligibilty clause is completely optional. It would be entirely optional for the hall to remove it and admit Rose.

Question for you: if Rose is supposed to be barred from ALL MLB activity, why was he allowed on the field at the all-star game a few years back honoring the game's all time best? Seems like MLB wanted to benefit from his participation, but then pushes him away when it's time for his due.

You also failed to address the additional chances MLB has given to alcholics and drug addicts. Why the discrepency? Why does MLB allow a person like Darryl Strawberry access to so many chances at using his talents for good, only to throw them away, then give him MORE chances like a job in baseball? Why is the stigma attached to gambling so much worse than the detrimental affects of drug and alcohol abuse?

Mac53

The difference is as I tried to explain earlier, that betting on baseball is the one thing that will kill the game. It's not a question of the stigma of gambling, it's that gambling will destroy baseball. I'm not really a student of 1919, but I understand that some of those players were banned even though they didn't take money and didn't do anything improper to influence any games. All they did was know about the payoffs and fail to report it promptly. Where it comes to gambling, there can be no tolerance because of how fatal it can be if it gets anywhere close to the game. And everybody knows it. It's irrelevant if the gambling participant did nothing to improperly influence a game because of the profound nature of gambling. That's the lesson of 1919. Personally, I believe that there should be moral standards applied to any Hall of Fame. Simpson is a tough question simply because he was acquitted of the crime (but not civil liability). So, I still don't know where you stand on the issue of whether any moral standards should apply to HOF admission. But moral standards aren't really the issue when it comes to Rose. It's the gambling on baseball that's the issue. Actually, I don't have contempt for Rose as a person. It's hard not to have contempt for his conduct, particularly where he lied for so long. His evasion of the truth hurt the game, and that evasion, as far as I know, is not a part of any pathology. Allowing him in the HOF would be disrespectful of the game itself. When Rose agreed to lifetime ineligibility, did he think that someday the HOF would remove that standard to let him in? And, I don't think allowing Rose on the field at an All Star Game amounts to some kind of waiver of his ineligibility.

Axtell

Do you honestly think that in this day and age, with athletes (even bottom tier pros) making millions and millions, that gambling on the games would ever seriously influence it? That's the difference between 1919 and today; back then, the athletes were little more than indentured servants, whereas today they are financial giants.

And does anyone think for a second that athletes everywhere bet on games? Does anyone think that Rose is the only athlete ever to bet on games, let alone ones he managed?

Like I said in my first post, Giamatti used Rose as a scapegoat and a way to get his name in the papers; the fact that a more widespread investigation into other managers/players who gambled just goes to prove this.

yawie99

Rose is a buffoon. Almost Canseco-like. Americans, I think, typically show a tremendous amount of forgiveness toward fallen public figures, as long as those figures show even an inkling of contrition. Had Rose issued a public mea culpa years ago, he'd probably be basking in adoration and there would be pretty strong support for his reinstatement and election to Cooperstown. Instead, he continued to evade the issue and essentially thumbed his nose at the game and its fans. He deserves what he's received.

Axtell

<< <i>Rose is a buffoon. Almost Canseco-like. Americans, I think, typically show a tremendous amount of forgiveness toward fallen public figures, as long as those figures show even an inkling of contrition. Had Rose issued a public mea culpa years ago, he'd probably be basking in adoration and there would be pretty strong support for his reinstatement and election to Cooperstown. Instead, he continued to evade the issue and essentially thumbed his nose at the game and its fans. He deserves what he's received. >>



Did you see the applause he got at the all-star game when he was allowed on the field? He got the longest, loudest ovations of anyone on that field.

The public as a whole knows he made a mistake, and who here hasn't perpetuated a lie to try to protect yourself? The only difference is his was on a public level.

Canseco may be a buffoon, but his book (and his obvious selfish reasons) is doing big things to shake up the steroid regime that has had a stranglehold on baseball since the mid-90s.

DirtyHarry

I concur with both sides, somewhat... Axtell makes good points. Yawie sums it up though. He made a half assed admission of guilt about betting on games he was not playing in or managing -- but that occured years after the Bart Giamatti days. He stood fast in his innocence and arrogance during the investigations of Giamatti. He is still insolent to this day about his denial. He no doubt has HOF credentials, but he thinks he is above it all. He makes a ton of money in or out of The Hall. I don't think there is any reason to allow Pete to be "bigger than the game". Had he repented when he had his opportunity to do so......

I recall being at a "Big Red Machine" show in Bally's Atlantic City about ten years ago. Rose is a great guy...took pics got everything signed and personalized how I asked. This was in the midst of stuff about his gambling. He had no issue sitting in the multi-cast horse race parlor, outside his signing duties, just about 24/7. I recall going up to my room at 10PM and seeing him sitting in the window of the parlor. Next morning, came down about 9AM for breakfast - and there he was again (had a different hat on, so assume he got some sleep). His right, but not the thing to be doing in plain sight of the public while your integrity regarding gambling is in question. IMO. Regards.

yawie99

I was going to mention that ovation and the fact that Rose obviously has his supporters, but I still believe that a majority of baseball fans hold him in contempt and would like to see him kept out of the hall - not because of the gambling, per se, but because of his subsequent posturing.

1420sports

still believe that a majority of baseball fans hold him in contempt and would like to see him kept out of the hall - not because of the gambling, per se, but because of his subsequent posturing.

recent surveys say otherwise.

Bud Selig could put him on the ballot with reinstatement. Then it would be up to the media. I believe this is his last year of eligibility before the Veterans committee, so it appears unlikely that he will get in.

Pete Rose has paid his dues. The ban he agreed to was to be looked at one year after the agreement. Giammatti passed away before that time came.

Baseball has larger issues to deal with than Rose.

yawie99

<< <i>Baseball has larger issues to deal with than Rose. >>



That I agree with.

Mac53

<< <i><< Baseball has larger issues to deal with than Rose. >> >>




[

<< <i>That I agree with. >>



Same here.

stevek

<<< I think that would be excessive for anyone to accept...so you are saying he wouldn't be allowed to buy lottery tickets, participate in march madness brackets, anything? That seems excessive at best, killing someone's fun at worst. >>>

Well that's your opinion and that's fine. However, Rose has NO CHANCE of getting into the Hall of Fame until he completely quits gambling. It's really that simple. All other talk about him getting in otherwise is mute. The problem is that letting him in would set a precedent and then anyone after that who gambled on baseball could simply fess up and everything would be "okay." The baseball rule regarding gambling would be rendered useless. That's why even if totally fessing up in a polygraph test, Rose still might not get in.

Does Rose "deserve" to get in? Of course, but "deserve" has got nothing to do with this. Role broke the "golden rule" of what not to do in baseball. My opinion is that he will never get into the Hall of Fame and even though I liked him a lot as a player, I've got no problem with never allowing him in. And don't let his "crocodile tears" fool you from those interviews he did to promote his book - Rose loves his gambling more than anything else including being in the Hall - otherwise he would have quit the gambling.

stevek

<<< Baseball has larger issues to deal with than Rose. >>>

I understand the comment and there are larger issues than Pete Rose. But there is NO larger issue than gambling on baseball. Steroids, bad as they are, won't kill the league. A major gambling scandal could kill the league and almost did with the "Black Sox." MLB simply can't allow that to happen again.

DirtyHarry

I vote to put him in. I just think he's been a knucklehead about the whole thing.......and that is why the controversy continues. He is one of the greatest players of all times.

Axtell

Steve-

So the baseball strike and subsequent fan reaction didn't almost kill the league? What is the current lockout/strike doing to hockey? I'd say labor problems like this would be the highest threat to the game.

There will never been a big gambling scandal because (a) its so widely accepted now and (b) there is no way to ever bribe a player with enough money to throw away his career.

stevek

<<< So the baseball strike and subsequent fan reaction didn't almost kill the league? What is the current lockout/strike doing to hockey? I'd say labor problems like this would be the highest threat to the game. >>>

I never said the strike wasn't bad - but a gambling scandal would be worse.

<<< There will never been a big gambling scandal because (a) its so widely accepted now and (b) there is no way to ever bribe a player with enough money to throw away his career. >>>

You could not be more incorrect about this. When owing money to a mob sports bookie and you can't pay - you'll do anything he says or else. A manager can let a tired pitcher stay in the game, a pitcher can serve up slow fastballs, a fielder can make intentional errors, etc., etc. If a few players on a team are in debt to bookies, even if from not from betting on baseball, that's a situation for a betting scandal. You're not thinking about your career - you're only thinking about not getting your legs broken.

lonroy

Rose SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME.

They don't have to let him back into the game as a manager or anything, but he should be in the Hall.

MLB changed the rules for the Hall AFTER they banned Rose from the game. That's cheating. Plain and simple.

At a minimum, Rose should be in the Hall....all his records are.

In today's MLB climate, whith players and all their problems (wife beaters, drug addicts, tax evaders, steroid users, etc.) suddenly Rose does not look so bad.

Axtell

Steve-

You paint very vivid pictures, but there is no way any player, making the millions and millions they do now, would ever get into debt in such a way that they'd have to throw games to pay it off. Just no way the economics would work out.

And if they were to throw the game, there's no way, in today's media, that that story wouldn't break immediately. Too many people with too many eager mouths to break the story.

Rose should be in the hall...Selig should be a man, and actually do something with that title of commissioner already. He's a worthless puke who has no backbone, and lets public opinion and the owners run him.

1420sports

Did MLB receive the proverbial "black eye" after Rose bet on a few games?

Will the steroid scandal be far more detrimental to the game?

bags05

Axtell, I find it amazing that you dismiss out of hand the real possibility of a player needing to help fix a game to escape big gambling debts. You make it seem like the biggest bets anyone can make are $1000 or so. Some of these bigger books will take 6 figure bets without blinking. With the way these players toss around their money, just stop and think about how fast a player with that kind of money could get in serious, serious trouble. A #3 or #4 pitcher, a catcher, a middle infielder could easily influence the outcome of a game. Consider this rumor posted on covers.com, a very popular sports betting info site:

Mickelson Rumor: Owes Casinos in Vegas over $13 MIllion. This is why he tried to renogotiate with Titleist last year. When Titleist said no Callaway stepped up to the plate (ala John Daly) and agreed to pay of his dept as part of his new contract. Another stipulation was he had to use the equipment at the Ryder Cup.
I work in the golf biz and heard this rumor back in the fall from 3 different people with tour connections. It seems to make sense to me.

I heard SI is sitting on this story and will be releasing Masters week. And contrary to the public the other players on tour hate this guy. This I know for sure.

Axtell

<< <i>Axtell, I find it amazing that you dismiss out of hand the real possibility of a player needing to help fix a game to escape big gambling debts. You make it seem like the biggest bets anyone can make are $1000 or so. Some of these bigger books will take 6 figure bets without blinking. With the way these players toss around their money, just stop and think about how fast a player with that kind of money could get in serious, serious trouble. A #3 or #4 pitcher, a catcher, a middle infielder could easily influence the outcome of a game. Consider this rumor posted on covers.com, a very popular sports betting info site:

Mickelson Rumor: Owes Casinos in Vegas over $13 MIllion. This is why he tried to renogotiate with Titleist last year. When Titleist said no Callaway stepped up to the plate (ala John Daly) and agreed to pay of his dept as part of his new contract. Another stipulation was he had to use the equipment at the Ryder Cup.
I work in the golf biz and heard this rumor back in the fall from 3 different people with tour connections. It seems to make sense to me.

I heard SI is sitting on this story and will be releasing Masters week. And contrary to the public the other players on tour hate this guy. This I know for sure. >>



Yeah I am going to believe some fourth hand rumors posted on some betting website. That's a credible, solid source of information.

Anytime a big dollar bet comes down, it shifts the point spread. Those would easily be detectable and if this were to ever happen, the media scrutiny on it would be overwhelming.

stevek

<<< Mickelson Rumor: Owes Casinos in Vegas over $13 MIllion. >>>

Not a rumor - it's a fact. I heard from a very reliable source who has contact with Las Vegas casino owners that the number is 18 million dollars. I didn't realize that SI was about to break the story.

You are absolutely right about bookies! There are some people on this forum who bet with bookies. Anyone who has ever been a few weeks late with a payment owed to a bookie fully understands what "pressure" from bookies is all about.

bags05

What do you mean, if it were to ever happen???? It happens many times a day!!! Point spreads shift not daily but hourly. Axtell, clearly you have had little experience/exposure to sports betting and the dynamics and the anonimity of it. Many many people (athletes/non athletes) can make large 5 figure bets at any of dozens of different outs any day or every day. There is sooooo much money churning through sports betting these days that it would likely take a few 6 figure bets on one side on one game to call anyone's attention to it. You could easily spread out $100000 over 7 or 8 outs, none of which would bat an eye.

Is a 6 figure bet "big dollar" enough for you for 1 game? A few of those over a couple of weeks and suddenly we're taking over a million dollars. Of course, that's chump change compared to what Mickelson owes but you get the idea. If your argument is that a player or a group of people betting on behalf of a fix couldn't get enough money down anonymously to make it worth the player's while to get out of huge trouble, well then you need to find a new argument.

GoBravesGo

<< <i>As a Phan of his, I am still hoping he makes it in. >>

ditto.