Steroids or Gambling?

[predatorkj]

Gambling is worse and it's not even close. Steroids theoretically won't change the way you play the game. Athletes who take steroids simply want to be better. Gambling is the opposite, especially if you are betting against your own team since you will be intentionally reducing your effort and trying to make yourself worse which is against the spirit of competition.

As for Pete Rose, even if he only bet for his team, it would still drastically change the way he managed games. The games he had money on sudden became a lot more important than the games he didn't have money on. That's going to affect who he chooses to rest, which relief pitchers he chooses to use on what days, and a whole host of other factors. He may be willing to sacrifice two games in order to win one (the one he bet on). That's why gambling is such a big no-no in baseball. You just can't do it.

You know I was going to say steroids at first but once again...you have a good point.I agree with you that it might affect your outlook and decisions even if you bet for yourself.The only problem is...I still think steroids affect every game you use them for.And chances are you use them as much as you can without getting caught.Those two games you'd be willing to lose to win that one game you bet on turns into all three games combined when you include steroids in the equation.


In defense of all who have answered...I say the question is too tricky to say yay or nay without circumstances for the gambling.And with that conclusion I have to say that there is no circumstances where steroids would be acceptable so I'd go ahead and say steroids is my answer.I mean we can slice and dice it a million different ways but neither one are good.But gambling is worse only if you are trying to affect the outcome of a game either by throwing it or cheating to be better.Steroids is a full time job on the cheating end of things.Gambling may or may not be depending on the situation.

 

[mredsox89]

Gambling is worse and it's not even close. Steroids theoretically won't change the way you play the game. Athletes who take steroids simply want to be better. Gambling is the opposite, especially if you are betting against your own team since you will be intentionally reducing your effort and trying to make yourself worse which is against the spirit of competition.

As for Pete Rose, even if he only bet for his team, it would still drastically change the way he managed games. The games he had money on sudden became a lot more important than the games he didn't have money on. That's going to affect who he chooses to rest, which relief pitchers he chooses to use on what days, and a whole host of other factors. He may be willing to sacrifice two games in order to win one (the one he bet on). That's why gambling is such a big no-no in baseball. You just can't do it.

You know I was going to say steroids at first but once again...you have a good point.I agree with you that it might affect your outlook and decisions even if you bet for yourself.The only problem is...I still think steroids affect every game you use them for.And chances are you use them as much as you can without getting caught.Those two games you'd be willing to lose to win that one game you bet on turns into all three games combined when you include steroids in the equation.


In defense of all who have answered...I say the question is too tricky to say yay or nay without circumstances for the gambling.And with that conclusion I have to say that there is no circumstances where steroids would be acceptable so I'd go ahead and say steroids is my answer.I mean we can slice and dice it a million different ways but neither one are good.But gambling is worse only if you are trying to affect the outcome of a game either by throwing it or cheating to be better.Steroids is a full time job on the cheating end of things.Gambling may or may not be depending on the situation.

Yea, this is my belief. There are no situations in which it would be ok in MLB to take PED's. There are situations in which gambling doesn't affect anything. So long as you are not betting against games you are in, and do nothing to effect the outcome of the games you bet on, i have no problem with gambling in baseball. I understand why there is a rule against it because it just takes away from the possibility of effecting outcomes of games.

 

[nborton]

The original intent of my question was more to the Black Sox side than the Rose. I just think one is trying to be better while other is trying to be worse. Neither is right, but betting I think destroys the game more. For me if I found out 104 players were betting on their own games I would be much more upset. It would feel like I was watching WWE or something. It destroys the competition of the game. Obviously I'm thinking betting against yourself, because betting on yourself can add to the competition (poker, etc.).