RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Pete Rose to be Reinstated

Posted by: ChicagoTRS
- Sustainer [566152116] Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 10:40

Pete will be back in baseball in 2004...

Can't say I am too happy about this but it looks like Pete Rose will be on the 2004 hall of fame ballot and will be eligible to manage and work in the game by 2005. Baseball totally caved as Pete will not have to admit to anything and is basically getting off with time served.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
176KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 517553018
      Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 19:30
Slackjawed Yokel, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I think if Rose had come out in the beginning and said, "Yes, I'm a gambler and I have a problem," or something like that and had actually gone into a treatment program, then I would probably have a different opinion on the subject. And before I sound too much like I think I deserve to hear Pete Rose admit that, I would be just as okay with him admitting it to the commissioner and then following a treatment program approved by MLB.

I've heard the comparisons of gambling addiction to being an alcoholic and I think it is that way for some people. I think it's that way for Rose. I think he has a much bigger problem than even he realizes.

But, more than that, my problem with the entire situation is that at every step of this entire ordeal, going all the way back to the original investigation, Rose has only given enough information to get back in the headlines, presumably to gain sympathy for his "plight." It's like he's only giving out as much as he thinks he needs to in order to get reinstated or to stir the general public to call for his reinstatement. If that's not enough, he'll disclose more later. So the question becomes, where is the end? MLB has a pile of evidence against him and he has still only admitted to the first piece: that he betted on baseball. It's this cat-and-mouse game that disturbs me the most about the situation. And while a slight majority of the general public may be okay with only hearing an admission to part of the allegations, I think MLB should require more from Rose before considering his eligibility for the Hall.

177clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Mon, Jan 12, 2004, 10:09
Thanks for the defense in #164 holt, but it's not necessary. I do find it a little on the "Quaker"esque side that most of the posters can decide that others' views can be so easily lumped into a "nutshell" while theirs' are much deeper, but I think it's as much a product of the fact that WHICHEVER side of this debate you side with, few do so passively. As I've said before, I respect everyone's right to disagree with my opinions, and I didn't respond earlier because I've already made the mistake of letting this turn somewhat personal once before. As for FG's decision to oversimplify my stance in an effort to discredit some of the arguments, I didn't particularly appreciate it, but I've said several times before I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind about this issue - each of us has to decide how "open" their mind is going to be when it comes to others' opinions and arguments, and I'll respect their decisions. As I'm usually one of the few who don't always have the numbers to back up my opinions, I always try to convey that what I'm stating is exactly that - opinion...yankeeh8tr's ststement in #162 was exactly that - his opinion - because while Rose's career average was just a shade over .300, that average spanned over twice as long a period as many of the greats' careers, so I consider the fact that his production didn't tail-off in the later years as much a testament to his talent as anything else. As for his being terrible defensively, that certainly isn't true. No, he was no Brooks Robinson (or even Graig Nettles) at 3rd, but he broke in as a second baseman. Before he moved to a new position, he led the league in putouts as a second baseman - he became an outfielder where he won a gold glove before he moved to third and to first later in his career. While Chipper Jones is no Andruw Jones (or Vlad, Edmonds, Hunter, etc.) I certainly think it's a bit of a stretch to call him a "terrible" defensive player.
178clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Mon, Jan 12, 2004, 14:03
For those interested...the book is a pretty good read - regardless of which side of the issue your personal opinion falls. I'm a little over a-third of the way through (this weekend's football was much more interesting than I had expected, not to mention my Heels drubbing of Ga Tech last night). Mostly in-character for Rose, mainly stories about his playing career, but several efforts at being apologetic (albeit in Rose's own way), and the beginnings of an explanation for the makeup of his personality are addressed by several doctors (although I assume more will come farther along in the book) are included.
179 Stamati
      ID: 42012716
      Mon, Jan 12, 2004, 21:23
Excuse me everyone, I have somethin very important to say and argue.

Look, I am for Rose getting into the HOF, because of his onfield success, as well as his ability to make the MLB a name by filling up stadiums, getting fans involved, etc. etc. Now, peopel feel he shouldn't get into the HOF, and his ban should be lifted. Really? Well, why isn't anyone saying anything about this.....

"The Boss likes giving folks second chances, and he's received quite a few himself. In 1974, not long after he bought the club, Steinbrenner became a footnote in Watergate history, pleading guilty to making illegal contributions to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign. Bowie Kuhn suspended him for two years, but lifted the suspension after only nine months. In 1990, commish Fay Vincent banned him for life after it became known that Steinbrenner had paid a gambler $40,000 to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield. Steinbrenner was allowed to come back two years later." (espn.go.com/page2/s/list/secondchances.html). Whoa Nelly; we can forgive and forget about George and his felony cases (which he never did jail time for btw) but we can't give Rose a chance? Aren't the "Anti-Pete Rose entering the HOF people" saying Rose isn't special? If he's not, then why is George?

I did my homework, now i'm, curious to see what people say...Touche!
180F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Tue, Jan 13, 2004, 02:08
What Steinbrenner did was wrong. No question about it. Unfortunately there is not a standardized penalty for it, so it makes it harder to be objective.

Also the fact that Steinbrenner is an owner, and has a half-billion dollar investment in a franchise whose fortunes depend on the successful growth of baseball, will always have some bearing on the situation. The owners MAKE the rules to an extent, and it is their money that funds the sport, so the sport will give them loads of flexibility no matter what. If there isnt a hard and fast rule written that he violated (and there isnt), then acting like a horse's butt and doing bad/illegal stuff is hard to penalize just the right amount.

Hear me clearly: IMO George's status as an owner would not excuse him or even be relevant if he had done things to blow off the integrity of honest competition (as Pete did), which is the foundation of baseball - but he didnt do that. What he did wrong was wrong, but it was something that has a VAGUE penalty to apply.

Note also that no one is proposing Steinbrenner for the HOF, nor are they likely to.

Is Steinbrenner a bad guy? Yep, I think he is.

But if you have been following along with the arguments against Pete, the view that says he needs to stay out of baseball is focused on (1) the harm he chose to do to the integrity or authenticity of the competition, plus (2)violation of a rule that explicitly says "if you break this rule, you are permanently out."

Steinbrenner did neither.

Should Steinbrenner be tossed out of baseball? It's hard to say - I think the guy is a jerk and is bad for the sport. But it is hard to compare the two situations objectively. And without a specific rule to refer to, it is hard to determine what is fair, without just relying on whether you like the guy or not.

You ask why people arent discussing Steinbrenner's problems instead of Rose's? I guess because the Steinbrenner decision was made 11 years ago, and it has already disappeared from the rear view mirror. Once a decision is made, especially in situations where it doesnt hit the headlines again, it gets forgotten and buried.

Many of Rose's supporters will no doubt continue to try to exonerate him by COMPARING him to other baseball people who have messed up in one way or another. But this is only about Pete and what he alone did - he blew off the integrity of baseball by his own admission. He did the crime, now he is doing the time. If other players have bet on their own team while they are participating in games, the penalty should be the same for them - those are the only relevant comparisons to use IMO.
181Khahan
      ID: 5044129
      Tue, Jan 13, 2004, 07:45
Just want to add an important footnote to F Gumps post above:
What he did wrong was wrong, but it was something that has a VAGUE penalty to apply.
...
It should be that it has a vague penalty within the confines of baseball's authority.
182Tree
      Donor
      ID: 599393013
      Wed, Jan 14, 2004, 13:24
while i don't have access to the ESPN Insider, the front page of ESPN.com teases Gaylord Perry "ripping" Pete Rose, saying Rose "wouldn't stand a chance" with the Veterans Committee...i find it ironic that Perry, one of the greatest cheaters in the game's history, would speak up like that...
183F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Wed, Jan 14, 2004, 14:59
TREE - Interestingly enough, the polls I have seen asking the public, and others asking sportswriters, whether Pete should be in the HOF, seem to indicate a consistently similar level of support in all polls ...

With the public, the various polls I have seen support Pete in the 64-68% range, depending on the poll. With sportswriters it has been 65-70%.

Since election requires 75%, perhaps the Veterans Committee is not the only place where he doesnt have enough support to make it.

If those are accurate, then it means that Pete may not get in, even if Selig caves.
184Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 30792616
      Wed, Jan 14, 2004, 15:13
FG: One difference between Rose & Steinbrenner is that Big George owned up to what he did and took his penalty like a man. Rose lied about it, and his supporters have been whining about it all along.

pd
185clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Wed, Jan 14, 2004, 21:35
Don't question the numbers you're seeing F Gump, but really think they're a little skewed since the hypothetical in the equation is that he will be reinstated...honestly think several of those who supported him previously (when polled) and switched sides of late just might rethink their stance again IF he was actually put on the ballot. Just always seems like most of the "fence-sitters" tend to lean with the prevailing winds - if he was placed on the ballot and a few publicly stated they changed their mind and were going to vote for him, that tide could change pretty easily - we've all seen plenty of evidence as to how fickle most of the voters are.
186The Pink Pimp
      ID: 6042220
      Thu, Jan 22, 2004, 02:34
Here's how I see it.

Pete Rose is a compulsive gambler. He has a disease. The nature of his disease is such that self treatment and attempts at self control simply do not work. He has an addiction and he can't control it but the root cause is still more of an illness and less of a choice. Gambling is not a "take it or leave it" choice for him, he must have it as he is addicted to it.

Lets treat his reinstatement case with that fact in mind. Give him access to rehabilitation which he needs. Reinstate him for service in the Minor Leagues only so that he can put something good back into baseball and teach his skills to a new generation. Put stringent conditions on this minor league reinstatement that would prevent him from gambling. Let him choose between the track and baseball. If he falters, suspend him for a length of time demand more treatment and let him back when he's completed it. If he's in the minors he can't have any direct causal effect on the big leagues so the issue of him being a gambler is moot as far as compromising the integrity of the game.

As for those who argue that his transgressions are so large that they preclude his entry into the hall I must ask the following.

Q:Which is the more serious type of cheating?

1: A manager/player who occasionaly bets on the outcome of a game either for or against his team.
2: A player who choses to take steroids as a strength enhancement and as a result actually cheats each and every time he steps on the field.

My answer is #2 the steroid taker is the bigger cheater. Every at bat, every throw, every fielding play, every aspect of his game is fraudulent based on the intentional decision to cheat by using steroids. He defrauds himself, the players, the fans, and the sport by his selfish choice to cheat.

Pete cheated. He gambled. We know that. He may still be lying. We admit that that is possible. But he's where he is because of a disease. Lets give him some compassion here. Reinstate him for hall of fame eligibility and for service in the minor leagues only. Lets try to help him beat his disease over time instead of simply sticking to some lifetime ban issued in a time when the linkage between addictive behavior (the gambling) and abberant brain chemistry (the disease) was not as well understood or well documented as it is today.

Lou Gherig had a disease that killed him. It didn't keep him out of the hall. Pete Rose's disease only killed his credibility. It shouldn't keep him out of the hall of fame as well.

With apologies to MITH,

Pete Rose in the Hall
187Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 30792616
      Thu, Jan 22, 2004, 09:03
PP, I don't think we need to offer additional help to players who don't do anything to help themselves. Maybe he has an addiction and maybe he doesn't (only an additional professional can tell for sure), but people with an addiction don't deserve additional treats like HoF entry if they are unwilling to take step one to help themselves.

Rose hasn't been denied help, or had his access restricted in any way. He's simply not gotten help (which may be because he truly doesn't have a problem, or may be denial--again, only a professional can tell). In no case, however, should he be given eligibility. People with an addiction problem don't get better by having people around them enable things, by smoothing over or eliminating the effects of their actions.

pd
188Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 2856618
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 12:08
From the I swear I'm not making this up department:

In another brilliant public relations move, our dear Mr. Rose is appearing at Foxwoods Casino on Saturday for an autograph session and dinner with the casino's high rollers.

Yahoo Sports News
189F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 12:20
PINK PIMP - Your take is different; predictably I disagree.

One thing you don't address, and that is very pertinent.

You think Pete is "afflicted by a disease" (which I disagree with - I just see it as bad choices), and thus needs to be reinstated (which I also disagree with), with rehab.

If you open up the door to it being treated as an addiction (ala the drug stuff in baseball), then you will have repeated and regular "kicked out" - rehab - readmitted - gambled again -kicked out again episodes like you do with the druggies.

If I am baseball, opening the door to that scenario would be nauseous and disastrous. The track record with the druggies doesnt give me any anticipation that such a path bears any benefit other than repeated headlines of more crap.

Also, you dont address a very big additional issue.

Pete is still embracing gambling wholeheartedly.
He was at a casino yesterday, promoting his book and the casino.

I have yet to see where Pete thinks he has a problem at all. No one gets "help" or changes behavior if they don't admit to a problem. He doesnt see gambling as a problem for him in any way. In all I have seen, the only problem he sees is that he got caught. He has never ever gotten "help" or tried to stop gambling (because, he still doesn't see gambling as a problem.)

I can see him as giving lip service to a "problem" if he sees it as a route to readmission. He is a very manipulative person who will say whatever he thinks he needs to say, to get what he wants.
190penngray
      Sustainer
      ID: 423241723
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 12:44
congrats to Pete. He was an amazing Baseball player!!! AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS!

If we wanted to place Moral values on sports I would bet over half of the hall of Fame wouldnt make it in. Adultery,Racism, Date Rape, Violence, etc You name they have done it but so what. We live in an imperfect world and Im sure everyone has skeletons. Why do we hold these guys up like they are our moral leaders?

Gambling to me isnt even a bad thing. I guess people just hate being lied too and Pete was a bonehead for not admitting it. Of course people dont realize they are lied to every day. I tend not to care what people say or do in the end, in sports I only care about performance on the field.
I never understood why people cared what Pete said or did, he was simply a great ball player

191Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 12:47
I tend not to care what people say or do in the end, in sports I only care about performance on the field.

That is the exact reason for the lifetime banishment.
192penngray
      Sustainer
      ID: 423241723
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 12:54
I think people just dont understand....

This is NOT about gamble, This was about Pete Rose betting on something that he has some control over the outcome.

Pete can promote gambling and people shouldnt care. there is no problem with that. He possibly bet on his own team and that is a conflict of interest which is wrong but that was the past. Pete should be allowed to do what he wants today.


Pete Rose is not a role model or possibly not even a good person but who cares? And those that care better care about the 1000s of other famous people, atheletes, etc that are screwing in society just as much as he did. If you arent that its sort of hypocritical (imo) to point out one player out of many,many to do the wrong thing in society.

Pete Rose was a great Baseball player and nobody can take those stats away.
194penngray
      Sustainer
      ID: 423241723
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 12:57
Mith,That is the exact reason for the lifetime banishment.

Im not sure what you mean?
195penngray
      Sustainer
      ID: 423241723
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 13:07
He is a very manipulative person who will say whatever he thinks he needs to say, to get what he wants.

I dont think he is, He would have manipulated this situation a long time ago if he was actually good at it. Pete Rose isnt that smart from what I have read and seen, his talent was on the field and his addictions run deep.

Personally, I dont care about his addictions. I just believe performance speaks louder then man's weaknesses. No one can deny Pete Rose was an amazing baseball player. This is the reason why people still discuss him, still want to see him reinstated,etc.

The simple fact does his on field performance outweight his off field stupidity?

I say YES but only because I tend to not care about people's personal lives. That is for them to screw up and me not to judge.
196Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 13:09
Pennegray
He possibly bet on his own team and that is a conflict of interest which is wrong but that was the past. Pete should be allowed to do what he wants today.

We know that as a person who was directly involved with MLB as a manager, he felt compelled to capitalize on his insider knowledge of the sport and his specific team by placing bets on the outcomes of games. We also know that the nature of Pete's gambling problem is such that he is addicted to placing bets. If you know anything about addiction, you also know that Pete will always be addicted, even if he never places another bet in his life. Sadly, the fact that he continues to explicitly associate himself with the gambling world is a screaming, blaring, ear-piercing and blatently obvious warning sign that he can no longer be trusted with the responsibilities associated with working with MLB. It certainly isn't illegal for him to gamble, but this isn't a criminal issue, and no one should look at it like it is.

My opinion of whether he should be in the HOF is that I think that that is something that the Veteran's Committee should be allowed to decide. They are his peers and I personally feel that their experience should be drawn upon when deciding what does and doesn't violate the spirt of the HOF. From what I've read, I don't believe the current VC would vote him in, either, but I do feel that they are the most apropriate body to make that decision.
197penngray
      Sustainer
      ID: 423241723
      Fri, Jan 23, 2004, 13:22
Good post MITH!

I have no problem with him not being voted in as you said that is up to the VC and they have a job to do.

I just dont have any anger against Pete Rose like others do. Then again, I seldom have any anger towards anyone I know and people I dont know dont impact me so why have anger. I dont know Pete Rose, I dont know what he goes through on a day to day basis. I can make a guess based on information about him that he lives a troubled life and because of that Im VERY, VERY Sympathetic towards him only because I have people that I know that have addictions and problems (I never blame them, period!!). I will never understand the strong words and resentment people post or talk when Pete Rose's name comes up. Its like those people live in a different world one without mistakes and its just hard to comprehend, heck 99% of all opinions about him are based on 2nd hand information and those people dont know him except through the public world and we all know how that works.
198Chris
      ID: 51231914
      Sat, Jan 24, 2004, 07:12
I read post #186 and thought...Bobby Knight.

Gambling is indeed an addiction, as real as any other. It's hard to not be a gambling addict and understand how a person can make such illogical and wholly irrational choices(this, my hard earned money, will not go to feed my children, even though I have no forseeable way to replace it). It's twisted, wrong and very sick. I am absolutely amazed at the thought process of those afflicted, because many are otherwise very intelligent people.

Of course, most people that have never had a drop of alcohol, or even the occasional drinker would be hard-pressed to understand how something like that could lead you to forsake all else and let it take over your life.

I don't understand either, but I understand that they are real problems and are not necessarily indicative of the person's character.

With that said, I wholeheartedly agree with post 187. The choice is yours to take the first step to rehabilitate yourself. It may not work, no addictions are easy to kick, but the sign of a true champion is perseverence. A man renowned for his perseverence hasn't even taken the first step in treating his gambling addiction, much less seen it through.

It could be as simple as this. There is a rule in the rulebook, one that every player and manager is aware of. It was broken and the punishment should be levied...end of story. Everything he did after that only compounded what should've been a lifetime ban regardless.

However, I don't view it that simply, because of what a rough addiction gambling is. I can definitely see both sides, but here's my thought...

Pete was a great player, one the fans loved. The Hall of Fame is mainly for the fans(at least I see it that way). If THEY want him there, then so be it. However, he should not have any involvement within baseball until he can show that he's well on his way to beating his addiction...could be ten years, or never. Also, any plaque honoring him would certainly have to mention his gambling...just part of the package.

I'm sure I've made some crucial lapses in logic and/or contradicted myself, but just my feelings off the top of my head as I thought them...
199holt
      ID: 561113315
      Sat, Jan 24, 2004, 15:51
Gump: "The track record with the druggies doesnt give me any anticipation that such a path bears any benefit other than repeated headlines of more crap."

Druggies... get 'em up against the wall!!!
Good for nothing scum of the earth - we're better off without them!!!

Nice choice of words Gump.
200Da Bomb
      ID: 339511119
      Sat, Jan 24, 2004, 18:54
Earlier in this thread, I had posted on my
views
of not allowing Pete Rose in the HOF. After
reading an excerpt of My Life Without Bars
written by Rose with Rick Hill which was in the
January 12th issue of Sports Illustrated, I’m more
undecided now if anything.
Pete Rose obviously knew he was breaking the
famous Rule 21 when he gambled on baseball.
However, he didn’t necessarily break it to its
full extent. Rule 21 states, in short, that
anyone directly involved who should gamble on
baseball be “declared permanently ineligible.”
But, one must look farther into this rule to see
if Rose actually broke the spirit of this
rule.

Here is what Rose said about the situation:

“ I knew that I’d broken the letter of the
law. But I didn’t think that I’d broken the
spirit of the law, which was designed to prevent
corruption. During the times I gambled as a
manager, I never took an unfair advantage...I
never allowed my wagers to influence my baseball
decisions. So in my mind, I wasn’t corrupt.”


Rose really opens up about all of his gambling
ways in his book. He holds nothing back.
However, he declares that although he bet on his
team at times, he never bet against his
team. That is a very substantial issue here. By
saying he never bet against his team, that means
he didn’t throw games on purpose. This is the
difference between his situation and the Black Sox
scandal in the early 1900s. Rule 21 is designed
to prevent corruption. Rose, by not betting
against his team, was not corrupt by that
standards.
201clv@home
      ID: 2310352214
      Sat, Jan 24, 2004, 22:05
Pretty insightful Da Bomb, but many steadfastly against Rose's reinstatement will fail to care about the relevance...that is ONE of the reasons I've supported putting him back on the ballot all along.


"I will never understand the strong words and resentment people post or talk when Pete Rose's name comes up. Its like those people live in a different world one without mistakes and its just hard to comprehend, heck 99% of all opinions about him are based on 2nd hand information and those people dont know him except through the public world and we all know how that works." Well put penngray - another of my feelings - folks, the man is human, meaning he makes the same mistakes the rest of us do, no matter how big a PERCEIVED hero he is on the baseball field.

If, as Da Bomb mentioned, he never bet AGAINST the Reds, that's good enough for me. It isn't and doesn't have to be good enough to everyone because each of us has our own standards we choose to hold ourselves and others to. What those of us who support Rose tend to seem to feel is that he never "fixed" a game, therefore he didn't break the rule to the same extent that the "Black Sox" did, and that he doesn't deserve the same punishment. In these times when there are so many more important things that SHOULD be addressed by baseball (i.e. players who feel they are above the laws of our society (drug-abusers, rapists, and the like), what Rose did simply isn't as bad as many others' transgressions.

I've been involved in two separate mock drafts all week, so I haven't had enough time to finish the entire book, but what I've taken from it so far is much as Penngray and others mentioned earlier...while many seem to want to villify him for his mistakes, I see him even more as someone who deserves sympathy because he sadly can't stop doing things that continuously lead his enemies to step on him while he's down. When there are experts in the field of addiction that continually come to his defense and attempt to explain why it controls his every action and others not as qualified brush off their words as nothing, it truly shines of closed-mindedness in my opinion.
202Stuck in the Sixties
      Dude
      ID: 274132811
      Sun, Jan 25, 2004, 08:57
I guess I still believe that Pete should be in the HOF but I hate it when someone looks me in the eye and lies. At any rate, making him eligible for the Hall through reinstatement is a far cry from being elected and I think he'll have trouble getting 75% of the writers to vote for him.

Don
203Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 217351118
      Sun, Jan 25, 2004, 09:51
Posts 200 and 201

Who are you guys to say what the spirit of the rule is?? The rule is no gambling on baseball. He broke the rule. Further, how in the world do you know whether bet against the Reds?? Because some guy who just admitted he has been living a lie for the past decade said he didn't? Don't think for a second that this career liar might not still hide some parts of the truth as he "comes clean". The confessions of anyone who comes clean for the purpose of profit (where's his book on the best seller list?) should be taken with an ocean's worth of salt.

As Da Bomb says, Rule 21 is designed to prevent corruption, but you're kidding yourself if you think that only means betting against his team. Even if his own personal rule was to never bet against the Reds, how do we know that he didn't overwork a few pitchers here and there to help win his bets on the Reds? Sure, he didn't throw this game, but how much of his team's success in the near-future might have been comprimised for placing greater value on this particular win than he should have?

Boys, the spirit of Rule 21, if anything, is about integrity.

Understand, addiction is a downward spiral. Even if he never did so before he was banned, Rose would have eventually bet agianst the Reds. I have little doubt that for a long time as a heavy gambler, Rose probably swore to himself that he would never bet on baseball. Eventually, he crossed that line, probably reasoning with himself that he isn't messing with the spirit of that rule so long as he doesn't place any bets on the Reds (typical behavior for someone who is addicted). After some time, that reasoning was probably replaced in his head with with something about just not betting agianst The Reds. That's the way people who are addicted think, and the next step after that is not hard to predict.

The addicted don't keep the status quo, they must take the next step until they hit bottom. With the potential payoffs associated with the power to ensure that the almost guaranteed outcome of any Reds game can be a loss staring him in the face, teasing him, I don't believe any vow to never bet against the Reds could have lasted very long. Once he started betting on baseball, the only way to prevent himself from ever betting on the Reds was to quit gambling all together.

You guys may be dismissing this as blatent speculation on my part, but understand, this is how the descent of addiction works. ...A cigarette here or there doesn't matter. ...Well, I don't go out that often so if I smoke when I go out, I'm sure I'm not at risk to get hooked. ...I'll usually finish off that pack of smokes that I buy for a night out over the next couple of days, but the first sign that I get of a "craving" for a cigarette, I'm putting them down for life. - Of course by then, you're done. ...You refuse to admit to yourself that the reason you first started smoking with any regularity was because you felt cravings for cigarettes back before you ever bought your first pack. ...A few months or so later, you're buying 3 or 4 packs a week. Then at some point you acknowledge your habit with yourself but rather than decide that this is unacceptable and that you must quit, you convince yourself that you can still stop anytime and that if continue to smoke at this pace, you will remain in control - so long as you keep it under a pack per day. By now you're already in denial about the strength of your addiction and probably about how much you actually are smoking.

Think a gambling addiction is much different? A less slippery slope? Not a physically addictive substance and therefore easier to reign in when the first signs of a problem sho themselves?

Then tell me... after all of the things that his gambling hobby has done to one of the finest baseball careers in MLB history, why in the world is Pete Rose still gambling???? The spirit of Rule 21 was EXACTLY what Pete Rose violated.
204F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Mon, Jan 26, 2004, 13:15
HOLT - yes, I do think that the way baseball has dealt with drug problems is dumb and (obviously) ineffective.

CLV - you said "what Rose did simply isn't as bad as many others' transgressions" - but, Rose's case is not about who is the biggest sinner. This is about how baseball protects its integrity as honest competition: and honest competition is the basis of what it sells to the public. That is what sets betting on baseball apart from other actions for a ballplayer (even though, in the hierarchy of "sins" it would be easy to rank it pretty low). Baseball isnt look for saints - but it is DEMANDING that its integrity not be threatened.

MITH - excellent summary of why baseball is accurate to set their "line in the sand" where they do. Thanks.
205The Pink Pimp
      ID: 5313323
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 05:41
Sorry to post late (#186) and then disappear for a bit but I just want to revist to make my position a little clearer.

Keep in mind that I believe that Pete has a disease that he can't control. If you think Pete is just making bad choices and is in full control over his gambling then you will be in fundamental disagreement with almost everything I say here.

I still feel that Rose should be reinstated for eligibilty in the hall. As for actually working in Baseball I feel that he should be limited to minors as I said in #186. IF, and its a big if, he elects to take a minor league position he should then agree to abide by any gambling restrictions and/or treatments that MLB feels are waranted to ensure that Pete's gambling doesn't present a problem for MLB.


PD - I agree and disagree with you. Disagree when you say he doesn't deserve consideration fo the HOF until he seeks treatment of his own volition. What I'm saying is that we admit he is afflicted with a disease and then say essentially,"OK he did bet, but he did so because of his disease. He didn't bet to throw games or to get rich, he bet because he was sick and didn't have a real choice not to. So he's sick and he's sick enough that he can't ever work in the majors again, but his sickness should not keep him from being eligible for the HOF."

I agree with you PD when you say, "People with an addiction problem don't get better by having people around them enable things, by smoothing over or eliminating the effects of their actions." You are right. None of the above will help Pete get better. But I'm not saying that we make him eligible so that he will get better, I'm saying that we should do it because we should recognize that the trangression that we banned him for was brought on by a disease.
As for helping Pete get better, I think MLB can only require active monitoring of his situation if he becomes involved with baseball again on the Minor League level. However MLB is free to assist pete in any voluntary recovery effort if it so chooses. So to help Pete get better all MLB can really do is be there to assist. The choice to get better is still Pete's.


F GUMP - You're right in that MLB can't let gambling addictions be treated like drug addictions. Note however that I only feel Rose is suitable for Minor League employment and even then he's only suitable if he agrees to whatever conditions MLB attaches to that employment. If other players bet because of an addiction and then get reinstated to the minors only, I don't really have a problem with that.
206clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 09:48
MITH...your opinion is well-stated, but one of the things I take issue with is the first question you asked: "Who are you guys to say what the spirit of the rule is???" The answer to that is exactly the same as your answer should be (and I'll only speak for myself) - I'm a lifelong baseball fan who loves the game. The fact that you're taking the perceived "ethical high-road" in the debate doesn't give your opinion any more weight than mine, they are both strictly opinions voiced by fans of the game that differ from each other. When you ask that question of others, ask it of yourself also. That said, ask the other question from the other side, and you might understand why I disagree: not "how do we know that he didn't overwork a few pitchers here and there to help win his bets on the Reds?", but "where is this overwhelming evidence that he overworked a pitcher here or there to help win his bets on the Reds?".

As I've stated several times, I don't believe he should be in a position of directly influencing the outcome of a game, but to dismiss others' opinions simply based on the fact that they aren't the "politically correct" feelings at present basically is that "holier-than-thou" attitude that makes this debate so heated with most people.
207Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 10:09
clv

Sorry, but I think the spirit of the rule is not a matter of opinion. I will agree that my first sentence of post 203 is a poor choice of words. I'll retract that. I should have said something to the effect of; "Your opinions of the spirit of the rule are clearly mistaken." Look at it logically; what could be the purpose of a lifetime ban for betting? To simply punish the guilty, or to protect the integrity of the game? If there is no concern for the integrity of the game, then what in the world is the purpose of punishing guilty in the first place?

You wrote:
If, as Da Bomb mentioned, he never bet AGAINST the Reds, that's good enough for me. It isn't and doesn't have to be good enough to everyone because each of us has our own standards we choose to hold ourselves and others to.

The only standards that Rose should be held to are the rules as they are layed out by MLB.

There is nothing ambiguous, arguable or that is open to interpretation regarding the second part of Rule 21 (d). In fact, I don't see how it could possibly be any more clear:
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.

The bulk of my post 203 explains why the literal interpretation of 21 (d) is important. The spirit or intention of the rule is simply not at issue.
208clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 09:31
That's the main part of the issue for most folks, I think, MITH...not whether or not Rose was right or wrong (that answer is obvious), but whether the rule and penalty itself is a bit outdated in these times. As I and others have said several times, MLB and the HOF are supposed to be separate entities...that being the case, I think what John Smoltz says in the article on espn.com right now pretty accurately reflects my feelings:

"I understand why he shouldn't be reinstated to baseball," the Atlanta Braves closer said Monday. "But I have trouble with him not being in the Hall of Fame."

Still, that hasn't changed Smoltz's belief that Rose should be in the Hall.


"Part of me says, 'At least he came clean,"' said Smoltz, who has 100 saves the last two seasons.


"Everybody knows when you step into the clubhouse that it's a lifetime ban for gambling on baseball. But it doesn't say anything about a lifetime ban from the Hall of Fame."


What Rose did was wrong, and if MLB chooses to never allow him back into the game on a daily or close basis, that's fine with me, but I do believe he deserves his place in the HOF, and if the other members of the HOF decide that his plaque should also contain a statement about his lifetime banishment, I'd have no problem with that either. His accomplishments on the field are as deserving of personal recognition as any who ever played the game, and should the others who earned places there decide that that position comes with the mention of his transgression, so be it.
209Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 09:39
clv,
My last paragraph of post 196:

My opinion of whether he should be in the HOF is that I think that that is something that the Veteran's Committee should be allowed to decide. They are his peers and I personally feel that their experience should be drawn upon when deciding what does and doesn't violate the spirt of the HOF. From what I've read, I don't believe the current VC would vote him in, either, but I do feel that they are the most apropriate body to make that decision.
210Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 09:43
MITH The bulk of my post 203 explains why the literal interpretation of 21 (d) is important. The spirit or intention of the rule is simply not at issue.

I believe the purpose of any rule is always at issue, because the rule can be changed, and in some cases changed retroactively (as MLB has done many times re other admittedly more minor rules, such as the qualifications for a batting championship.) So what the purpose of the rule is, and whether the rule effectuates that purpose, is always a relevant question.

In addition, if you want to rely solely on rules, Rule 21(d) has been applied (well, as MLB looked at it; they settled for an agreement.) In any case, Pete Rose has been declared permanently ineligible. Rule followed, rule-worshippers [should be] satisfied. Now the question is whether, and on what terms, that ban should be modified or rescinded.

Toral
211Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 10:01
So what the purpose of the rule is... is always a relevant question.

I don't know that I agree, Toral. You'll have to show me how the reason for that particular rule could be open to any interpretation other than that betting on baseball comprimises the integrity of the game and betting on a game in which one has any affiliation comprimises integrity to the extent of potential notable irrepairable damage and that any person who would place such a bet can never be trusted with the responsibilities associated with being a part of a MLB club.

I don't see how the fact that the rule can be changed makes the intent or purpose of the rule ambiguous in any way.

As far as the question of whether the rule effectuates that purpose, I agree that this is something that we should continue to ask, as changes in the game and the way it is approached and advances in technology and countless other factors might change the effectiveness of some of the failsafes built into the system.

I think a more aplicable question (possibly what you were getting at?) is whether a particular rule remains fair and/or necessary - or was ever necessary to begin with.
212Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 10:45
I think the purpose of the rule, the reason why there is a rule, needs to be looked at more broadly. The purpose of the rule is to prevent the throwing of baseball games (and secondarily, the appearance that baseball games might be being thrown, or doubt as to whether baseball games are being thrown.) Betting on games against one's own team can lead to a player/manager attempting to throw a game to produce the desired outcome. But Judge Landis, very toughly and wisely, decided that merely prohibiting that wasn't enough. (notwithstanding that, as Rob Neyer's recent article showed, betting on one's own teams used to be considered an OK, or even praiseworthy thing, showing that one can confidence in one's own squad.) Landis appreciated that betting even on one's own team could lead to being in thrall to bookmakers, could lead to debt or a situation where the bookie says "you're in a big hole. There might be a way you can make that up." Or perhaps that even just regular gambling on one's own team could lead a player to take the next step. Hence the rule, as I keep saying it, a prophylactic rule prohibiting, under strict punishment, relatively innocent things in order to guard against their developing into something worse.

So, that having been done, and the punishment having been imposed, the question becomes, not (just) whether the rule should be changed, but whether a player who violates the rule in the (relatively) innocent way should receive the full punishment to the last jot and tittle, considering the purpose of the rule. Considering the purpose doesn't necessarily lead to a pro-Rose judgement or lifting of the suspension; one could well conclude that relaxing the suspension might subvert its purpose, by leading players in the future to say, "OK, well, if I only bet on my team, it's no big deal, I can get off after a decade or so." Or one might conclude that the rule has been so successful in achieving its purpose that it's best to leave it like it is and insist on full punishment to the letter. But I don't think that a good judgment about the wisdom of insisting on the full punishment can be made without considering the essential purpose of the rule.

All this is separate from the question of changing the rule for the future (although I would doubt the equity of reducing the punishment for betting on one's own team to, say, 10 years, and maintaining the lifetime ban on Rose.)

Note: I realize that there are further issues involved in betting on one's own team -- giving information to gamblers about the confidence one has in one's own name, managers altering their game decisions -- but I don't believe they were instrumental in justifying the rule's lifetime suspension for this.)

Toral
213clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 11:37
That is part of my point as well Toral...the problem for everyone involved here is separate and different from any faced before. Each of the past indiscretions were under different circumstances, not only from this one, but differing from each other as well. No matter the intent of the rule, it MUST be looked at on a case-by-case basis, otherwise these debates and issues will never see any closure (regardless of what each individual wants that closure to be). Simply stating that Rose does not deserve his place in the HOF because those involved in the "Black Sox" scandal don't deserve one is ludicrous in my opinion - the results, situation surrounding the issues, and the times are entirely different. If you don't believe the Rules should ever be open to change or adjustment, ponder this question a bit:

Should people of color be allowed to sit anywhere other than the back of the bus, or should they be allowed to drink from the same water fountains as whites?

The answer is obviously yes, but if we hold our rules or laws out to be beyond question, this would never have been the answer. Spin it as "relativism" (as it has been before) if you like, but in discounting all other things relative to the issue, you become closed-minded imo, and lose ground. If we decide to overlook the relative issues and say "the rule is the rule because it was the right thing in the 1920's", then should we not say "the drinking fountain law is the law because it was the right thing in the 1940's and 1950's"? A big part of the reason that baseball has lost it's stature as "America's Pastime" is for this exact stance - many in today's higher-paced, less-judgemental times don't care for all the history and intricacies involved in the game...they're more interested in seeing great athletes excel at their craft, corn-rows, tattoos, performance-enhancing and social drug use notwithstanding.
214F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:09
CLV ...I resent you trying to make this relevant to a racial issue. That is BS, to bring race into this and then say "racial rules were wrong, so this rule is wrong also." Irrelevant, and reprehensible.

215Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 30792616
      Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:35
Toral, I never thought you'd go liberal on me.
216clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:41
It can be said about ANY outdated laws or rules F Gump, not strictly those pertaining to race...the point is strictly that these are different times than before...pick any you prefer:

same-sex marraige
prohibition
dwi laws
invasion-of-privacy
and on-and-on...

I apologize if you feel slighted by the one that popped into my head first, but that's all that it was.

The entire point is that ALL of our society's laws and rules have to be open to change, regardless of what those laws and rules are, or our society simply doesn't work. If we were closed-minded and not open to changing, we would never have reached this point in our development, no matter how far we still have to go. The rules of baseball weren't written in The Bible, you attend games in stadiums, not churches, and my feeling is that if anyone (not you personally) feel those rules CAN NEVER be altered, the game will become a footnote in history. The rules used to be no inter-league play, no DH, etc. Have these rules changes helped the game? For some, yes, for some, no. The point is that if any ONE rule is ever opened to change, they must ALL be, and those changes should take place when the "end-user" (the fans) make it known that it's their wish.
217F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 16:19
CLV ..I dont object to the argument that it is valid to examine the need and application of unimportant or minor rules as times change.

But regardless of the rules, racial oppression was clearly wrong at any time. The rules that allowed it were wrong from the moment they were written. And using that as an analogy is wrong - and it is also reprehensible, because of the overtones of injustice that it injects. Rose is NOT a person that has been deprived or oppressed like those who were racially oppressed, anywhere, anytime, any way. (Rose himself has tried to make this argument, and it disgusts me.)

I could argue that murder was illegal in the 20s, and it is just as illegal now, so therefore rules should stay the same. And that also would be an irrelevant argument, if I tried to apply that to Rose.

Re the rule itself, I would reject any argument that Rose should be absolved BECAUSE he was a very good player. I believe in equal application of rules, if baseball feels it is a foundational rule to guarantee honest competition. But I do accept that discussion about the rule itself, and whether it might somehow be revised, is relevant.

However, I have yet to see an argument that persuades me that "baseball can safely and with certainty lessen the penalty for gambling on baseball, without risking any harm to the legitimacy of competition." I dont wanna see WWE-Baseball, with rigged competition (or questions thereof). At one time, prior to such a strong rule, that was indeed a possibility.

The strongest argument offered is that "maybe lessening the penalty wont harm the integrity of competition." But if you cant be certain, and if the rule is working, and if before there was a major problem (all of which are true), then I believe you HAVE TO keep the rule as is.
218The Pink Pimp
      ID: 5313323
      Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 21:44
F GUMP Let me tackle your challenge.

You said "However, I have yet to see an argument that persuades me that "baseball can safely and with certainty lessen the penalty for gambling on baseball, without risking any harm to the legitimacy of competition."

The punishment for gambling on baseball doesn't have to be an all or nothing affair. There may be cases in which penalties other than a lifetime ban are in order.

In criminal courts the charge of murder can be filed in different degrees and these can be further modified with special circumstances such as premeditation, lying in wait, etc. Why can't the same be done with gambling?

To borrow from geo-politics the "all offenders get the lifetime ban" approach is like the 1960's concept of Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD for short. Under MAD any nuclear attack by the Russians against us would have triggered a massive all out response by us in the form of a responding nuclear attack. This means that no matter how small the initial attack was, even if it was one bomb, that the response would be a total attack.

MAD eventually was replaced by the strategy of "Flexible Response." Under flexible response, as you would expect, the response to a nuclear attack or threat could be flexible and be in proportion to the attack. Such as, they nuke us with one missle so we send one their way.

Perhaps baseball needs a more "flexible response" approach and less of a "Mutal Assured destuction" one.

Before I go on lets see if you and I can find some common ground here.
Do all of the following gambling scenarios below deserve or warrant a lifetime ban?
Betting on a game that you play in.
Betting on a game that your friend plays in.
Betting on a game with inside knowledge.
Wagering a dinner with a player on the other team over which team wins.
Participating in a "pool" type betting scheme whithin your social circle.
Betting one million dollars that your team will win or lose.
Betting one dollar that your team will win or lose.
Making bets when the primary motive is profit
Making bets when the primary motive is the not profit but actually the addictive need to bet.
Sitting on the bench and betting twenty dollars with your teammate that you will get a hit next time up.

All of the above could be easily defined as gambling and as such they would all result in a lifetime ban under the present rule. If you think that any ONE of the above scenarios does not need a lifetime ban, then it logically follows that you believe a flexible response might be needed.

So how can we punish players flexibly?
Imagine a series of punishments with the total lifetime ban at the top as the most extreme, with others such as a lifetime ban from the majors, a 5 year ban, and a ban of indeterminate length ending only when certain conditions have been met being somewhere in the middle leaving such smaller punishments as monetary fines or suspensions from a number of games at the lower end.

In the end Baseball has to make the determination as to which penalties fit which transgressions. I agree with you that Baseball must safeguard the legitimacy of competion but unlike you I do feel that there are ways to do this other than via a lifetime ban. Furthermore I believe that there are times when the gambling infraction doesn't even significantly impact the legitamcy of competition. And lastly I believe that there should be room for extenuating circumstances and this is significant in Rose's case.

The extenuating circumstance in Rose's case is that he was then and is still a compulsive addictive gambler. His bets were placed because he needed the action not the money. He's sick and addicted and even though he won't admit it we know it because we have observed all of the symptoms of his illness time and time again. In the case of Pete Rose I do not think that a limited reinstatement that allows him into the hall only, or one that allows him to work in the minors only would significantly impact the legitamacy of major league competition.

In cases, unlike Pete's, where the betting is so minor that even the bet itself might very well have had no significant impact on competition, a lower penalty can be fairly considered. The penalty might still be substantial but not the all or nothing lifetime ban that it is now.

If a player bets dinner with another player on the outcome of the game, that's gambling. Would the public worry that the legitamcy of the game was compromised? Should both of these players be banned for life? Would fans shun baseball as being corrupt if the offending players were allowed to stay in the league?

If Baseball adopted a system that gave out punishments that were proportionate to the severity of gambling infractions, and kept foremost the protection of honest competition, there are times when a smaller punishment would have no measurable impact on the legitamcy of the game.
219F GUMP
      ID: 352161623
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 04:45
PP - I agree "in principle" with your premise, but I disagree on its outworking and possibilities in this scenario. It is a good idealogical discussion, but your arguments use hypotheticals that sound good but that dont fit the reality.

For example, you toss in scenarios about players getting banned for life by tossing a dollar in a pool, or by betting dinner. But I dont see that as an issue to even conjecture over, because I dont see anyone ever having been punished for such actions. So lets deal with realitities.

Your premise - you can have differing degrees of punishment for differing levels of the same basic "crime."

The problem in applying this premise to baseball's case resides in separating "what constitutes a serious crime" from what doesnt. To be fair to the spirit of the rule and its purpose, ANYTHING that endangers the legitimacy of competition, or that would open the door to such a situation, can NEVER be tolerated.

The obvious problem is that there are only two good hard rules: (1) dont gamble on baseball, or (2) gambling is okay to an extent, as long as you dont fix games. The problem is that if you go with the latter rule, you are allowing players to enter into a lifestyle choice where sooner or later one (or many) will throw a game to "get even just this once." Here is the sticky point though - baseball had a serious problem with this at one point in the past. So I still dont see how you can get rid of the rule that (with its implementation) made that problem vanish, when nothing else did.

As to the Gambling Addict excuse, whether valid or not (and of course all would use this "out" if offered) - if you have an addict, you do not allow them a "little permissible taste" in any form shape or fashion. If you believe that people exist that cant control their gambling, then those are the very people you MUST keep completely away from your game, because you know they will go over the line regardless of where it is set.

Eventually, if minor gambling is semi-okay, one of them WILL go ahead and fix a game or a few, til someone gets caught. It would only be a matter of time til the public knew SOME games had been fixed - and then every weird play or untimely error would cause raised eyebrows and disgust, even if merely an honest misplay. Again, this refers not to merely what COULD happen, but also to what DID happen, in baseball's past.

As to Rose, no matter how you set your rules, he blasted the rules to smithereens. He didnt bet a dinner on a game, or toss a dollar into a pool, and he isnt being punished for such a thing. He broke the rules repeatedly, deliberately, and with an arrogance that said "I am bigger than any rule that baseball makes."

And rather than let him back in BECAUSE he is an addict (if we accept that premise), instead you MUST keep him away BECAUSE of that situation.

I see nothing in Rose's actions at any point that show him to be excusable as a minor offender of the competition rules (which to me impact his legitimacy as a HOF candidate) - nor is there anything that says he has acknowledged an addiction and has taken steps to change his life accordingly (which to me is a MANDATORY step to his even be considered for a role in the minors).

Your scenario with him in the minors, by the way, is one of those things that might sound good on paper but wouldnt be practical. IMO Pete would never work in the minors even if he were offered a chance - it would be a total violation of everything he is seeking. (And do you really want him in the minors training future major leaguers to gamble on baseball? lol) He wants the acclaim, and working for peanuts in some podunk baseball setting, riding on buses from game to game, isnt going to interest him in the slightest. (I doubt he would even settle for a job as an assistant coach in the majors, frankly. Just my opinion.)
220The Pink Pimp
      ID: 5313323
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:01
F GUMP, seems we have the thread to ourselves for a bit.

Just a few things in response to your last post,

You said,"For example, you toss in scenarios about players getting banned for life by tossing a dollar in a pool, or by betting dinner. But I dont see that as an issue to even conjecture over, because I dont see anyone ever having been punished for such actions. So lets deal with realitities."

Here's a story about Rick Neuheisel who was FIRED from his NCAA footbal head coaching position because he bet in two NCAA BASKETBALL pools.
Neuheisel Fired
That's pretty real life huh?

On the issue of Pete Rose working in the minors, you are right, Pete is too proud and headstrong to ever work there. I actualy never thought he would take that deal either. I only proposed it as a way that Baseball could reinstate him partially, thereby showing a degree of public forgivness without really risking much in the credibility of competition department. Its a face saving move more or less. And what better lesson could a minor league player have than the all time hits leader as his coach, in the minors? Talk about a real life reminder of the consequences of gambling.

As for every player gambler using the "addiction defense" there are ways to make that distasteful or impossible as well. You could only use the assessment of independent or baseball appointed profesionals when determining a degree of addiction. You could give a player a two or three year ban to go along with it, maybe even five. Every player would know that gambling would still have a very real monetary impact on his lifestyle if he were suddenly to be without his MLB paycheck for a few years.

And I'm not sure I agree with you when you said, "And rather than let him back in BECAUSE he is an addict (if we accept that premise), instead you MUST keep him away BECAUSE of that situation." If Pete's an addict, which I belive he is, then he has a DISEASE that is beyond his control. And if he has a disease then he deserves at the minimum some form of compassion. What you ask him to do is almost impossible. Look how successful other well known addicts were with their recoveries, Steve Howe, Darryl Stawberry, for example. Now these guys dont have HOF careers either but they give you an idea of how hard an addiction can be to kick even with help.
Keeping Pete out because he is sick, is like keeping cancer patients out of the hospital until they heal themselves. "Go take out your own cancer and then we'll let you in." Sounds like a good policy.

Yes my argument uses hypotheticals, but I only did so to see if there was a point at which the lifetime ban on gambling seems to be an inappropriate punishment. I think there clearly are times when it would be, and I think Pete is one of those cases.
221clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Mon, Feb 23, 2004, 22:55
A little more "fuel-to-the-fire", courtesy of Mike Schmidt...

link
222clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Fri, Feb 27, 2004, 17:35
Anyone interested in a pretty good laugh, filter through the thread I started on the topic on the TSN boards...if you thought we had off-the-wall spins in this thread, you'll really enjoy that one.
223Great One
      ID: 141172214
      Sat, Feb 28, 2004, 22:07
so.. Just wondering if you guys knew that
THE Great One
and I - Great One - are not the same person...

gotta figure something out here... you guys probably all thought you were talking to me.
(not that you would respect my opinion differently or anything, but you know me etc..)
224Khahan
      ID: 31201711
      Tue, Mar 02, 2004, 11:43
Its happened, Pete Rose to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
225Perm Dude
      ID: 37237148
      Wed, Mar 14, 2007, 23:20
Rose: I bet every day.
226TB
      Sherpa
      ID: 031811922
      Fri, Mar 16, 2007, 07:25
I listened to the audio on cold pizza yesterday and he sounded like such a liar.

Dowd: Some nights, Rose didn't bet on Reds

I can't believe I used to argue that he should be in the Hall. He was a great player when I was a kid. A great example of giving it your all on every play; Charlie Hustle. I idolized him. Now he just seems like a pathetic old man. The drama over the years that he's created over his baseball gambling, the lies, it's just too much for me anymore. I no longer care what he says because I don't believe him. He's selfish and will say or do anything that he thinks will help him get into the Hall. It's depressing.
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a random spelling of Mientkiewicz
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days43
Last 30 days1614
Since Mar 1, 20072089842