As someone who doesn't watch baseball, why was Pete Rose gambling on games such a horrible thing? Not only punished but to the extent where he was banned for life and considered a pariah? Were there any allegations he bet against his team?

A better question would be, how did you even get through half the title without inferring that I know of such things?

My question was relating to the severity of the punishment and universal ostracization. There is no conflict of interest in betting on your person or team to win in itself... if you did not understand that...and an ideal person having a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that they will act unethically. So I was not understanding how he was given such a severe and final punishment when there was no evidence he did anything wrong, just put himself in a position where he could have. I understand rules need to be in place and often they are in place for such circumstance of only being in a position to do something wrong so I understood that he was punished but a lifetime ban did not seem proportionate to the infraction. And the wide social ostracization didn't make sense at all as people don't usually care that much about rules being broken if nothing unethical or dangerous happens, and certainly not for years and years.

What I needed was the context, of the 1919 world series and how seriously the problem is viewed. I also needed to hear about how one could bet to win one game and play/manage in such a way to make that more likely but in doing so make winning a later game that one didn't bet on less likely (which would be a CoI), but that is due to the nature of MLB and as I am not a fan of baseball or other team sports so I'd never heard of it. That conflict of interest is possible because of how MLB is played and there would not be a conflict of interests in say betting on yourself to win a boxing match.

That explain the reasoning for being punished more severely and also it explain the need for a no tolerance policy and the ostracization which confused me as usually a)rules are enforced with degrees of severity, and b)usually people don't care that much at all when rules are broken if there is no evidence of unethical or dangerous behavior. I was looking for allegations of throwing games or something like that but now I know there would not need to be. Now knowing about the "bet on and try to win this game, forget that game" dynamic I see that it would likely be difficult if not impossible to discern not only when an infraction happened, but also the severity of the infraction, or if there was in fact actually any unethical actions. Especially as one could still try as hard as possible to during the "sacrificed" game and could still even win

That explains the no tolerance policy as well as they would never be able to determine the severity of the infraction and a proportionate punishment.

It also explains the social scorn. Since it can't be proved one way or the other and with the no tolerance policy and no degrees to the punishment, you just either do or you don't, the understanding and agreement seems to be that if the rule is broken at all it is automatically considered to be in the worst way possible and that would include unethical actions and malice, that and the offender knew this and offended anyway does not look good for him.

/r/baseball Thread