With the recent spotlight on steroid use in baseball, has there been a poll to determine what the general public considers the worse offense: Betting on baseball, or steroid use?

robboy

I know there has been a poll taken on the baseball discussion site that I belong to, and the overwhelming concensus is that betting is much more serious. The reasoning, with which I agree, is that betting has been defined in its entirety, whereas steroids and usage definitions are still changing and being debated within MLB and the player's union. That's a pretty abbreviated answer, but I'd be surprised if it's a great deal different throughout the general public. Sep 29 05, 9:41 AM

LeakyPickle

That makes sense...especially to the extent that betting on MLB games is the #1 no-no. However, I wonder if the argument could be made that betting on a baseball game may not affect its outcome as directly as a juiced up player would. Sep 29 05, 5:39 PM

robboy

Great deal of debate on that thing as well, LP, and many are calling for expulsion of convicted steroid user's records from the books--a can of worms I don't wish to see opened. There still is betting on games, and there will always be someone pushing the edges with performance enhancers, but they're fast becoming much smaller in quantity. The best that can be done at present is to stress the emphasis of what's not allowed, for the future. I'm optimistic that in the long run, the numbers won't be skewed that badly. Sep 29 05, 6:20 PM

my_baby_love

Also, like performance enhancers, there are different degrees of betting that would make an accurate public poll difficult. For example, Shoeless Joe Jackson was thrown out of baseball when the only evidence against him was that he knew the 1919 World Series was being thrown and did nothing to stop it. Pete Rose, on the other hand, has confessed that while he was a player/manager he made his own wagers on various MLB teams, including his own! For this he recieved the same punishment as Shoeless Joe. Sep 30 05, 4:18 AM

LeakyPickle

No doubt, punishment for what is defined as unacceptable must be enforced. I suppose I question the consistency and what's appropriate. Have to confess, I am a fan of Pete Rose, the player. Even so, it's easy to recognize that he's not the brightest when it comes to common sense, and his general integrity is questionable. By now, every knows he admitted to betting on baseball, and I have no doubt he bet on the Reds. We'll never know how involved Joe Jackson was in the fix against the Reds in 1919. Betting back in the old days was MUCH more prominent than it is now. It's hard to defend the actions of either player. I suppose my confusion is with the wishy-washy nature of the commisioner. Seems that current players who use drugs/steroids can be initially suspended for their action, then be offered treatment for their problem. The same is not true for when allegations of gambling addiction surface. In the meantime...the commisioner recognizes Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose in various capacities (including the Hall of Fame) when it benefits the sport. Sep 30 05, 6:04 AM

JERSEY1961

my opinion - steroid use Oct 03 05, 9:18 AM