|
| Posted by: ksoze
- Sustainer [50643419] Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 10:05
Doesn't sound imminent... yet. |
| | | 1 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 11:09
|
Atleast they are talking, which is a good sign in my opinion. I know the number one rule in baseball was broken, but there has been much worse things baseball players have done then what Rose did.
|
|
| | | 2 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 11:37
|
Baseball really needs to get this issue behind it so that the sideshow that occurs everytime Rose is excluded from some baseball event that he should otherwise obviously be at will end.
I was at the last game at Riverfront this year and it was ridiculous that Rose wasn't allowed to be there. The reaction of the fans (and a lot of the players) at the ceremony after the game really detracted from the experience.
I think everyone understands that Rose bet on baseball. He's a man of many flaws and to some degree that probally endears him to a lot of his fans in the Ohio Valley.
Time to forgive, forget, and get him in the HOF.
|
|
| | | 3 | Khahan
ID: 3511431012
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 13:49
|
I've seen some pretty convincing arguments on this site why the ban should stand. I just don't side with them 100%.
Frankly I don't see the ban being lifted 100%.
I wouldn't be surpised if it is a partial lifting to allow Rose to be elected to the HoF.
Seems like the only thing that makes sense to me.
Rose gets his re-instatement (to an extent). Fans get to see their man in baseball. But Rose is still excluded from the pageantry and spot light of baseball. All parties get a little something they want.
I wouldn't bet on this, but then again, I'm not Rose.
|
|
| | | 4 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 14:15
|
I am for enforcing the ban. I am for enforcing it forever. Ever since a Neyer article that outlined websites that gave the facts about Rose I have been adamant against any reinstatement.
I understand the typical arguments like "But rapists, druggies and spouse abusers are allowed in" -- and I don't argue that those are not heinous crimes. While those guys are jerks and should be dealt with within the criminal justice system, what Rose did tore at the heart of the integrity of the game. Rose *DID* bet on baseball and *DID* bet on the Reds. He deserves to be banned just as the rules say.
|
|
| | | 5 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 15:35
|
Rose bet on baseball while active in the game, bet on games involving his own team while active in the game, and therefore violated the integrity of the game. He should be banned from ever being associated with the game again in any active capacity. Sure there are alot of worse real-world crimes out there, which is why this punishment is limited to within the confines of the baseball universe.
However, for the merits of Rose's playing career, he should be allowed to be re-eligible to the Hall of Fame now that he served his punishment, and should continue to be allowed to appear in baseball parks (a limited number of times per seasin with MLB's approval for each request)for the various special moments appearances, new ballpark openings and so on.
|
|
| | | 6 | Donkey Hunter
Sustainer
ID: 55220159
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 15:44
|
I think it should be mandatory that all players bet on their own team to win every game.
|
|
| | | 7 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 15:49
|
I was never a big Rose fan and while I understand the rules, if he had bet AGAINST his own team, I'd be for continuing the ban. I think he should be reinstated and let the HOF voters decide for themselves.
|
|
| | | 8 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 16:03
|
Even if he bet FOR his own team that raises some very serious ethical problems.
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 301181015
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 17:17
|
The evidence against him was damning. His punishment was no HOF eligibility--the ban should stay.
And unless "Shoeless" Joe gets a reprieve, Rose should just continue to cool his heels, IMO.
pd
|
|
| | | 10 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 17:17
|
Rose was the manager. He bet on his team. Sounds like a good thing? He is putting his own cash on the line so he really has the extra incentive to want his team to win.
BUT. What it still raises the integrity issues. For example, if he will maybe overuse a key reliever on a day he bet on his team and that player really could have used a day off, or on a day he does not bet on his team, he decides not to play someone so they are a little more rested for the next day when he plans on betting on the team, and maybe sacrifices a loss because of it. Maybe even shifts his starting pitchers around to coincide with a betting plan.
The fact is by sometimes betting on his own team means that he is open to the possibility that he will manage the game differently and maybe recklessly. This is even though there is no doubt in my mind that Pete Rose would want his team to win every game.
|
|
| | | 11 | Chuck
ID: 47763012
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 17:25
|
Follow along as I debate myself. Note, I used Chicago's comment to spur my discussion with myself, but this is not directed at him. Was just the start of my personal debate. Feel free to disagree with me, b/c half of me probably agrees with you!
**********
Even if he bet FOR his own team that raises some very serious ethical problems.
such as... ?
I'm not for individuals gambling on sports period, and specifically within a sport they are playing.
The only thing I could see would be the idea that he could have made deals with other teams that they would allow his team to win? Or allow him to run up his own stats? With either situation, some sort of collusion would need to be involved. In this case, if collusion cannot be found, I say to let him in for the Hall of Fame (unless it can be found that his stats were tainted by the betting).
If evidence could be shown (and not even necessarily proven) that gambling may have impacted some of his stats, then I say to keep him out of baseball and even the Hall. If this is a non-issue, I say let him in the Hall.
Counter-point:
Rose knew the rules. He broke the rules. He faces the punishment. Simple as that.
Point:
Integrity notwithstanding, did his gambling actually impact anyone? It was an isolated case, and regardless of any "benefits" received from gambling, he was still one of the all-time greats.
Counter-point:
The impact of the ban of Rose from baseball is immeasurable. How many younger players did that ban prevent from gambling? How many careers did that one save? By lifting the ban, one completely ignores consequences. For your support of personal responsibility, this is a great way to show others. While not to the extreme, it is a case of how great punishments may unknowingly prevent a myriad of crimes.
**********
End of personal debate.
Related question before I give my final decision:
Is it known when in his career Rose started gambling? Was this a full-career deal or something that only took place after 10+ years in baseball as "entertainment?" What we know about this impacts how I view the situation.
|
|
| | | 12 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 58735170
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 22:32
|
JeffG...has the right idea...those are some of the reasons I was thinking of when I made the statement that it is wrong to bet on your own team.
- maybe he is more apt to overwork a pitcher on a betting day...or under work a pitcher on a nonbetting day
- maybe he rests key starters in preparation for a bet
- if there is any kind line involved maybe he pushes harder to win by an extra run or two
- maybe he sandbags some games...poorly manages...to raise his future betting odds
- maybe when he faces a particular pitcher he makes a less than perfect lineup to raise future odds against that same pitcher
- does he let his pitchers have higher pitch counts does he keep his starter in an extra innings or two even with a big lead
- maybe young players do not play on betting days
- and the obvious one...maybe he throws a game to pay off some debt
Not saying he did any of these things but by betting on his own games or any baseball game for that matter he creates the perception that he may have done any or all of these things. It compromises the integrity of the game. How many people would watch or care about baseball if the games were fixed?
Personally I say keep him banned...there are rules and rule #1 is don't bet on baseball or face a lifetime ban. If you don't enforce the rule don't have it. Pete Rose ends up being a perfect example for every other athlete that follows not to bet on baseball. If they will ban probably the most popular player of his era they will ban anyone. The rule now has proven severe consequences. Maybe lift the ban after he passes away and induct him into the hall.
|
|
| | | 13 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 04:12
|
The hardliners are right that Pete broke an important rule and had to be punished, and also right that MLB for protection of its integrity needs to be able to impose the maximum ban without having to prove that any of the harmful consequences that might follow from a player or manager actually happened actually did occur. That's why such a hard rule is justified; before Judge Landis cleaned things up, you had people like Hal Chase running around, throwing games and escaping punishment because they had hired lawyers and the witnesses against them didn't show up for the hearing, etc. But in law the maximum penalty is reserved for the worst possible fact situation, and I think that general approach is appropriate here. The possibility of a lifetime ban needs to be there in gambling situations, but where the situation is intensively investigated -- as it has been here -- the max should be reserved for offenders who have bet, or may have bet, *against* their own team or have actually committed some of the ills that gambling on one's games may lead to. MLB also does not have clean hands; it mishandled the situation by misleading Pete about the consequences of signing what he did. Under all these circumstances, Pete has already served a sufficient penalty and should reinstated.
PD: And unless "Shoeless" Joe gets a reprieve, Rose should just continue to cool his heels, IMO.. I don't get the Shoeless Joe comparison that many make. Jackson took money and agreed to throw World Series games in return. Jackson was a "10" or "9" on the miscreant scale, Rose a 3 or 4.
Rose has already gone through 13 years of Hell; that's enough, IMO. I don't think ending the ban now is going to lead any present player or manager to say, "Hey, MLB's enforcement of this is really weak! I think I'll go place me a bet."
Toral
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:15
|
Toral, I don't believe the ban on Rose is in place strictly as a detrement to current players (or even future ones). It's the punishment for Rose's actions.
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson didn't take money Toral. His crime was that he did not tell the club about other players who did. From Judge Landis' ruling: no player that sits in a conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are planned and discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."
In fact, the man hit .375 (leading both teams), hit the only HR, and set a record for hits in a series. Still think of him as a "9 or 10?"
pd
|
|
| | | 15 | Khahan
ID: 3511431012
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:37
|
But, hasn't Rose maintained from day 1 that he did not bet on baseball?
|
|
| | | 16 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:37
|
?
1. Jackson was banned for dumping, not "guilty knowledge". The guilty knowledge part of the Landis quote above was for Buck Weaver, who was banned for guilty knowledge.
2. Did Shoeless Joe Jackson take money? Well let's ask the man himself. Here's what he told Asst State Attorney Hartley Repogle:
"REPOGLE: Did anyone pay you any money to help throw the series with Cincinnati?
JACKSON: They did.
REPOGLE: How much did they pay?
JACKSON: They promised me $20,000, they paid me five.
REPOGLE: Who promised you the $20,000?
JACKSON: Chick Gandil.
REPOGLE: Who paid you the $5,000.
JACKSON: Lefty Williams brought it to my room and threw it down.
REPOGLE: Does Mrs. Jackson know that you got $5,000 for helping throw those games?
JACKSON: She did that night, yes.
REPOGLE: What did she say?
JACKSON: She said she thought it was an awful thing to do."
I would give Jackson a 10. I said 9 or 10, to deflect in advance people who might want to give him a because 1) he was a simpleton; 2) he was trying in some of the games, either because he had misgivings, or because he thought he hadn't been paid enough.
In any case, Jackson did enough to be banned for 10 lifetimes.
Toral
|
|
| | | 17 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:43
|
From blackbetsy.com, some of the many "facts" regarding Jackson (I didn't see where these facts are referenced):
FACT: On the evening after the fifth game of the Series, one of Joe's teammates (Lefty Williams) came to his hotel room and offered him an envelope containing cash. Joe refused to accept it, an argument ensued and Joe left his own room. Lefty threw the envelope down and left. This version of the crucial event in Joe's case was attested to, under oath, by the only two men who were there: Joe Jackson and Lefty Williams. Their accounts agree, Joe did not take the money, it was dumped on him. It must be noted, Lefty Williams had nothing to gain by lying for Joe Jackson, therefore....logic leads us to believe his testimony is the truth.
FACT: Sometime over the next few days Joe took the envelope containing the $5,000.00 that Lefty had left in his room and went to see Comiskey. He was told by Comiskey's secretary Harry Garbiner that Comiskey was busy and could not see him. Joe waited for an hour and still was told that Comiskey could not see him, so he went home. Hindsight is always 20-20 and we all know Joe should have gone to Lefty Williams and threw the cash back in his face, sadly we all know he didn't do this.....but we also know that he tried to do the right thing....to tell what he knew.....but Comiskey was in the process of a cover up....and wanted to keep Joe Jackson quiet......truth be known.....Comiskey was afraid Joe would run his mouth to the press.
|
|
| | | 18 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:47
|
Jackson's performance in the Series:
"Sportswriter Hugh Fullerton heard about the fix, and asked former superstar Christy Mathewson to sit with him and judge whether certain plays were "on the level". Both noticed Jackson seemed to throw wide from the outfield, and he deliberately slowed down to miss balls hit near him.
Fullerton also noticed that Jackson was playing too shallow on a game winning high fly ball to LF that sailed over his head, allowing the Reds to score a run in Game Four. Cincinnati won, 2-0.
Jackson's potent Black Betsy hit a weak .316 for the first five games of the Series - weak because he didn't drive in a run during those first five games. Consider that Jackson had hit .351 for the regular season. His Series average for the first five games was a full 35 points below his regular season average. It appears that Jackson had a chance to drive in some runs because Buck Weaver, hitting in the third spot, batted .300 during these five games. Jackson was just too busy fixing games to get the runs home.
The Black Sox had a change of heart after they figured out that the gamblers were going to double-cross them. Eddie Cicotte pitched well in Games 4 and 7. Happy Felsch had two RBIs in Game 7. Chick Gandil, the man who sought out the gamblers in the first place, had a crucial hit in the 10th inning of Game 6 and tripled to drive in three Chicago runs in Game 8. In the last three games of the series, Jackson also decided to play his best: he batted 6-for-13 (.462) with six RBIs."
|
|
| | | 19 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:48
|
link
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:51
|
Great site, ksoze.
In the testimony from all the gamblers and teamates, no one named Jackson as being part of any fix. And his performance in the Series demonstrated that the one area he had control over was one of trying to win the Series for his team.
He tried several times to give money back which was literally thrown at him, and was rebuffed each time.
Rose, who knew what he was doing was wrong, still did it.
And which games can you point to that Jackson threw? Here are his box scores for the Series.
pd
|
|
| | | 21 | Khahan
ID: 3511431012
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 11:55
|
"and he deliberately slowed down to miss balls hit near him."
Could he have deliberately slowed down to not let singles bounce past him and turn into doubles?
...
"Jackson's potent Black Betsy hit a weak .316 for the first five games of the Series - weak because he didn't drive in a run during those first five games. Consider that Jackson had hit .351 for the regular season"
He hit .316! against the best pitchers the best team in the other league had to offer.
...
"It appears that Jackson had a chance to drive in some runs because Buck Weaver, hitting in the third spot, batted .300 during these five games"
Out of his approximiate 15-20 at bats how many were home runs, leaving the bases empty? How many were singles, meaning he was not in scoring position?
...
Looking at raw stats after the fact leaves a bit to be desired in my eyes. I'm not saying that what the reporter said was false. Im just pointing out he drew his own conclusions based on limited info and ignore other perfectly feasible conclusions.
...
If you are convicting Joe Jackson based on that type of information, then you have no business convicting Joe Jackson.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 24 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 12:03
|
The examination there is weak, IMO. Each case in which Jackson did well was a "didn't matter anyway" and when he did poorly (or it can be inferred that he did poorly) he was obviously dogging it.
This, from a guy who was not actually in on the fix. The entire argument relies upon the fact that Jackson was in on it. Without motive the analysis by Holmes is just a typing exercise.
pd
|
|
| | | 25 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 12:14
|
The last word(s), from the ferocious Doug Pappas: One; Two.
|
|
| | | 26 | Khahan
ID: 3511431012
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 13:09
|
I read over the site posted in #19 by Toral.
Most of that is anti-Joe propaganda.
Arguments 1-5 all try to debunk what Joe supports say by throwing out the anti-Joe camp interpretation of what happened.
In argument 1, they start out on the right track by pointing out that the pro-Joe (PJ) camp mis-uses the court hearings. They then go and make a pretty giant leap of faith and try to blame the next 15 years of poor play on the 'thrown' series:
We now know that the Black Sox scandal caused the White Sox to field 15 years of second-division baseball clubs, but this was rather difficult to prove in 1920.
Where is the connection? There is no correlation they provide to prove this.
Point 2: Where is the context of that? Its merely an excerpt. Yes, it is very damning. But there is no context. Without the the proper context, would it be damning at all to Joe? In fact, many of their quotes are fragmentary and have no context. They simply take what they want.
Point 3: They did a good job of defending comiskey and I applaud them for that. But so what? What effect does Comiskey's guilt or innonence have on whether or not the series was thrown?
4: Again, so what. What effect does this have on Joe Jackson's case?
5: So by this logic, any team who plays poorly had to have fixed games. I guess that means the 2002 NY Mets fixed all their games? They didn't come close to expectations. That is the leap in logic they are essentially asking you to make.
6: This is the only point I can agree with. Jackson's numbers do not merit hall of fame consideration.
|
|
| | | 27 | Chuck
ID: 321042420
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 13:16
|
And if he did intentionally throw the first few games and "turned on" his hitting power in the second half of the series, imagine what he could have done throughout the whole series. That could have been one of the greatest individual performances in history if really did have the ability to do so.
Personally, it seems defense might be a better way to throw a series rather than offence. Not that I've tried either :-)
|
|
| | | 28 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 13:24
|
Re 23, I agree with Holmes. I've been saying that same thing for years.
|
|
| | | 29 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 13:31
|
I think their are good arguments either way on Joe Jackson...but the one point I never hear denied is he knew about the fix and did nothing to stop it = banned.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 15:26
|
Actually, TRS, there's evidence that he tried to tell the owners of what was going on when he knew of it, but they refused to see him.
And frankly I'd question not only whether there was something he could have done about it, but whether it was his place to be the sole person who should have. This was a widespread danger, and the blame net was cast far too wide IMO.
I just heard of a court case where an alcoholic went to a bar, got drunk, and killed someone in a accident on the way home. So who does the family of the victim sue? The wife of the alcoholic for not stopping her husband since she knew he was an alcoholic. Jackson is the wife here--he knew about the fix, was not an active participant (by the only people who would have known), and he got the shaft. The only difference is that he made some effort to tell the owners.
pd
|
|
| | | 31 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 17:11
|
Re Joe Jackson in the 1919 WS: Stats can be so misleading because not every at bat has as much importance in determining who will win the game, and the Black Sox did win 3 games that series. Heck, the Sox could have all tried their best and still lost the series, there are enough cases of the series going against a heavily favored team in the last 100 years. They could have played the game, see how it progressed under normal circumstances and a savvy fixer may not have even tried to lose unless it was a close game late, or played and just do not allow a big inning from happening. There could even be more collusion among the 8 involved in the fix, where to keep appearances up and suspision low, only a few players are needed to tank any specific game in certain situations.
We know that most of them never saw a cent promised from the gamblers and we'll never know if Jackson really genuinely tried to prevent it, but we do know he was involved, at his best case only as someone who was aware of this conspiracy.
Should Jackson have been banned from baseball for life? Absolutely, his actions could scarred the sport to where it could have died right then and there. Who knows had it not been for Babe Ruth taking a folk-lore legend status in the years just following it if baseball would have survived the 20's.
Should Jackson be eligible to the Hall of Fame based solely on his playing career? Probably, but just put on his plaque "evidence shows he was involved in 1919 World Series fix and Jackson was banned from MLB for life because of it".
If Pete Rose becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame, I think he should still be continue to be banned from baseball on any level other than ceremonial.
|
|
| | | 32 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 10:18
|
I have been waiting for something like this to come out:
Dowd says there was evidence Rose bet against the Reds
If anybody has been a gambler or knows what the addiciton to gambling is like, then you know that all loyalty and morality go out the window when you are making bets.
If Pete bet ON the Reds, which is almost common knowledge at this point, then you can bet your a$$ he bet against them on more than one occasion. That is undoubtedly the issue at the root of his suspension. He pleaded with Giamatti to keep that information under lock and key because it if ever came out that Rose bet against his won team he would be forever disgraced.
In order for Giamatti to guarantee that this info never saw the light of day, Rose had to accept the lifetime ban from baseball. I guess Rose felt that was better than being seen as the ultimate lowlife in the eyes of baseball fans.
I wonder how many of you would still think Rose should be in the Hall if he admitted to betting against the Reds??
|
|
| | | 33 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 10:55
|
I thought something like this might come out too. Dowd might do anything to cover his unprofessional work as twin investigator/counsel against Rose.
From the story: "Dowd, who investigated Rose for commissioners Peter Ueberroth and Giamatti in 1989, said his investigation was "close" to showing that Rose also bet against the Reds, but that time constraints prevented its inclusion in the report"
I beg your pardon? "Time constraints"? No professional investigator would conclude a report and leave that question open. No man of integrity would leave that possibility open and bring it up 13 years later.
Why? How the Hell can Rose defend himself against this innuendo now? How can he attempt to rebut innuendo, rumour, gossip, based on 15-year-old -- what, stories? The fact that Dowd's report stood up so poorly to scrutiny is no longer a surprise, since we know from his comments in the story that he has not been acting as an objective, competent professional.
----------------
Well, someone needs to be discredited perpetually and my initial suggestion is Jim Dowd. I hope proceedings are taken against him in his capacity as a lawyer, and we'll see how he likes "disbarment" as a lifetime penalty.
----------------------
Thinking it over last night, this confirms my view. I remember after the All-Star Game fiasco, when Rose said he actually felt bad for Selig, that nothing this discrediting for baseball should have to happen, but that it's terrible that the blame would go on one well-intentioned person (Selig). For pure baseball justice, let's reinstate Rose, and throw Bud Selig out of baseball. Selig has broken MLB rules with inside dealing with owner cronies numerous times; and has done more harm to baseball than Rose would even contemplate. Then reinstate Rose. And make Dowd and Selig get on their knees and beg to be reinstated. I'm no fan of Pete's, but I'm now pretty sure he would show more class, and concern for baseball, in considering their weak cases for reinstatement, than Dowd and Selig ever have.
Toral
|
|
| | | 34 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:12
|
Funny thing about insisting that he admit his gambling in order for the baseball world to forgive him, why is forgiveness necessary? If I commit a crime and am convicted and do my time, I will be free when my time is up - whether or not I ever admit that I was responsible, and whether or not anyone who was wronged by my actions forgives me. If I plead not guilty and get convicted and then later admit that I was responsible and get the people I hurt to say they forgive me, I don't necessarily get any of my sentence knocked off. Perhaps showing he deserves forgiveness is one plausable route Rose could take toward reinstatement, but I just don't feel it sould be necessary for him to get into the HOF.
I believe his sentence was too harsh to begin with and that his banishment should not have included taking away his eligability for the Hall of Fame. I see enshrinement as more than simply a personal reward for the player. It is also about setting and mantaining standards for greatness. What Pete accomplished has great historical significance, and the Hall of Fame is a monument to and a museum for baseball history. I feel that he can continue to suffer adequate consequences for his actions by being kept out of the game aside from some ceremonial capacity even if he is inducted into the Hall. I think Jeff G's suggestion is right on. His banishment and the reason for it is a part of baseball history as well, and including mention of it on his plaque as a part of his legacy seems totally apropriate. Of course, the general consensus here is that my perception of what the HOF is about is somewhat distorted anyway, so I don't expect to be overwhelmingly agreed with here.
|
|
| | | 35 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:23
|
I'll restate my opinion that any reinstatement to Pete Rose should still prevent him from managing another pro baseball team again.
If it can be proven that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds while he was managing them, the implication is that he FIXED baseball games. If it is true, he should not only continue to serve a lifetime ban, but that alone is offensive enough to have him kept out of the Hall of Fame permanently. That could be enough for fans to want Selig to give him a Pharoah type of punishment from the Movie "The Ten Commandments". "Let the name of Pete Rose be stricken from every book and tablet. Stricken from every pylon and obelisk. Let the name of Pete Rose be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of man, for all time.".
On the other hand, I question the credibility of that charge so late after the intial report and I will give Rose the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise on that issue.
|
|
| | | 36 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:30
|
A quote from the Dowd Report: "No evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds." That report was signed by John Dowd in his capacity as Special Counsel to the Commissioner, and I hope Pete's fans (of whom I am not especially one) demand to know how Dowd can square that statement, his present statements, and his continued membership in the Bar.
Toral
|
|
| | | 37 | Tree
ID: 599393013
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:31
|
two points.
1. Rose is currently, whether MLB wants to admit it or not, under a "partial ban". remember, when there was money involved (i believe it was the Mastercard greatest moments thing at the world series), Rose was allowed to participate. hypocrisy at its finest.
2. when one compares Rose to other players in the hall, or not in the hall, it should not stop and end with Joe Jackson.
the baseball HoF is filled with miscreants and degenerates. Ty Cobb comes to mind - he challenged umpires to fight, beat a handicapped fan in the stands, and the list goes on.
the hall of fame should be based on one thing only when it comes to players: on the field contributions. period.
peace,
Tree
|
|
| | | 38 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:31
|
Dowd is a joke and obviously has his own agenda. How does a serious investigator say that he "thinks" he "would have" found evidence. As an investigator, unless you have an axe to grind, either you have eveidence or you don't. I can't believe ESPN.com reprinted that wild rumaor that Dowd evidently wanted to spread that the Reds wanted to fire Boone and hire Rose. (Although, I think it'd be great, were it not for the media circus that would insue - it'd sure take a lot of pressure off Junior)
Rose, no doubt, bet on the Reds. Dowd, sounds like, is trying to damn him for not betting on them when a aged Mario Soto pitched. Hell, nobody was betting on Mario Soto in 1984.
Baseball, at some point needs to look at the desire and effect the ban has on fans, as a seperate issue from Rose's conduct since the ban. Every poll that is taken shows that baseball fans overwhlmingly support the notion of reinstating Rose. The same kinds of polls show that baseball fans want Selig out of the game. Now, who is it that is harming the game?
|
|
| | | 39 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:49
|
Rule 21(d):
BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.
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.
not 13 years ineligible...permanently.
not if he only bet against his team...any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform.
This is the rule...all the players know the rule...Pete knew it...permanently ineligible period.
If the rule is too harsh then the rule should be changed...if the rule is correct as is then Pete should stay banned.
|
|
| | | 40 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 12:25
|
The rule has been followed. Pete has been declared permanently ineligible.
Now the question is -- as it always has been when that rule has been invoked -- whether, when and under what conditions (if at all) the declaration should be amended, relaxed, etc.
Toral
|
|
| | | 41 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 12:44
|
If they let Pete off without changing the rule...I have a problem.
If they modify the rule...say 10 year ban...or banned from wearing a uniform or working in baseball again. But declare him eligible for the Hall...I would not have a problem with it. Personally I actually think Pete deserves a plaque in Cooperstown but they should do it the right way and amend the rule to be more reasonable and leave a provision to allow a player like Pete in.
Neyer has a good Rose article at espn.com today... "The strange love of Pete Rose"
|
|
| | | 42 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 13:04
|
Chicago TRS I read that Neyer article and fired off a response.
Neyer: Our time on this earthly sphere is finite, so I won't bother arguing that anybody who voted for "Failing to hustle" over "Betting on baseball games" is a stark raving lunatic. If you actually believe this, I've already lost you."
Me: "You've missed a basic point about baseball, and since you probably won't pay much attention to me, I'll point to the elaborate and correct reasoning of your mentor, Bill James, as a guide.
Betting on baseball games is not inherently wrong in itself. It is wrong only because it *breaks a rule*. It is a good rule, because betting on baseball games can lead, at worst, to very bad things, like altering game decisions to win a bet, getting in thrall to gamblers, etc. It is bad because it can lead to indifferent efforts in games, to things like, what, FAILURE TO HUSTLE. Failure to hustle, and the inability of fans and managers to tell whether failure to hustle is due to personal reasons or gambling-induced reasons, is WHY GAMBLING IS SUCH A BIG SIN IN BASEBALL. Sorry for the caps, but you don't seem to get it.
The rule against gambling is what is called a "prophylactyic" rule. It is designed to guard against other ills. The other ills that the rule is designed against are by definition worse than the ills that the proph rule is designed to prevent.
Yes, you've lost me, but that shouldn't bother you. Worse, you've lost your own independent reasoning faculties -- which are usually better than mine, and I hope you get them back."
Actually, I'm beyong caring that much about the Rose issue now. What should happen to Rose I don't know. But I know that Dowd was a biassed investigator, and more importantly for me, has disgraced his profession.
Toral
|
|
| | | 43 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:03
|
nothing against you Toral but I think that is a stupid statement...and you are using illogical reasoning.
>>The rule against gambling is what is called a "prophylactyic" rule. It is designed to guard against other ills. The other ills that the rule is designed against are by definition worse than the ills that the proph rule is designed to prevent.
Sure "failure to hustle" may be one reason why gambling is banned but it is definitely not the only reason and certainly not the most important reason. The main ill that the no gambling rule is meant to combat is compromising the integrity of the game by fixing games. In this case no gambling is meant to prevent the far worse evil of fixing games...not all things banning gambling protects against need to be by definition worse than gambling itself I think only the main reason needs to be.
I do agree with Neyer anyone who voted in that poll that not hustling is worse than gambling on games is a moron. The results of that poll amaze me...people voting that players who use cocaine are worse than gamblers is just stupid too. That is such an easy question to me...none of those other ills even compare to gambling on games. Gambling has the absolute potential to destroy the sport, that is why the punishments are so harsh. I would stop watching baseball tomorrow if I found out the results were fixed. (I would also wonder what the hell is wrong with Chicago that we couldn't fix a world series or two are way ;-))
|
|
| | | 44 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:10
|
Gambling on games does not inherently affect the integrity of the games.
Faling to hustle does inherently affect the integrity of the game (How else do "fix" a game anyway - you fail to hustle - meaning fail to do your best)
I guess I'm a moron like Toral. Teach me more O cognitive one.
|
|
| | | 45 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:13
|
I do agree with Neyer anyone who voted in that poll that not hustling is worse than gambling on games is a moron. Then I am a moron, cuz that's how I voted. Nothing wrong with your having that opinion, but as an already proven moron I hope you will understand if I feel no constraints of politeness in making observations on anything you might say in the future -- consider it trying to upgrade myself.
Ironically, I agree with you on the other parts...Rose talk is going on all over today, and Rome said something like, "Snorting heroin on the mound during the 7th game of the WS -- Rome pause -- Rome pause -- is not as bad as gambling on a game." I agree with the part that as far as baseball transgressions go, doing any kind of drug is much less serious than the worst crime -- failure to hustle. And of course, having a bet on the game as an intrinsic act aside from baseball rules is a lesser offence than either.
Toral
|
|
| | | 46 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:16
|
MBJ - Fixing games can be done in many other ways besides failing to hustle. If a pitcher is throwing his game and he purposely throws "fat" pitches to the best hitters on the other team that is not lack of hustle. If an outfielder continually throws wide of his target purposely to allow advancement of runners that is not lack of hustle.
I don't have a major problem with any players/coaches betting on games featuring other teams, but betting on their own game (either for or against) is the cardinal sin. That should not ever be tolerated.
I think we all can at least agree that a player betting on his own game is much worse for the game than a lack of hustle because of what it infers (that he is altering his performance to do his best to change the outcome).
|
|
| | | 47 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:21
|
Whitey see post 44 - As I defined it in the previous post - faling to hustle means failure to do your best and would envelope all of the examples you provided.
|
|
| | | 48 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:29
|
I think there is a big difference betweeen failing to hustle and fixing a game. They are two distinct actions. I define failing to hustle as hitting a popup on the infield or grounding to an infielder and then not running hard to first base or hitting a gapper and just jogging to 2nd. This happens ALL OF THE TIME in todays baseball. Most times when a player fails to hustle it is because it is a routine play and 99 times out of 100 it makes no difference whether the player hustles or not...he will be out or standing at 2nd or basically the results are likely to be the same. I do agree I like players who run out every grounder and do give it their all but in my mind it is far from the worst thing that could happen.
Fixing a game is totally different...that has to do with making a conscious decision to do something purposefully to try to prevent your team from winning or changing the outcome of a game. Being up to bat and striking out on purpose or throwing a batting practice fastball to a hitter. This is the ultimate sin because once this happens you begin to question everything that happens on the field and doubt the legitimacy of the entire sport.
I really fail to see how the two are related.
|
|
| | | 49 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:31
|
I totally disagree with you on that point, but it is just my opinion.
Lack of hustle to me refers to the following:
- Not running out a ground ball because you think it is a sure out
- Not running out a fly ball for the same reason
- Not running from first to third because you don't feel like it
- Letting a fly ball drop in front of you instead of laying out because you didn't want to get hurt
...stuff like that.
When I say fixing a game is more than just a lack of hustle I am saying that a player is intentionally making bad plays.
You are equating lack of hustle with fixing and I don't think that is accurate.
I think you can be dogging it while not at the same time trying to fix the game. You can also fix the game without a lack of hustle.
I guess the term "hustle" is what the problem is. What is your definition of hustle?
|
|
| | | 50 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:33
|
Jeez TRS...that is freaky that we both wrote almost the exact same thing...and I was writing mine when you posted yours.
|
|
| | | 51 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:34
|
Failing to hustle - when a player fails to hustle it is because it is a routine play and 99 times out of 100 it makes no difference whether the player hustles or not...the results are likely to be the same whether he hustles or not
Fixing a game - making a conscious decision to do something purposefully to try to prevent your team from winning or changing the outcome of a game (has nothing to do with hustling)
Maybe our argument is mute and we just have different personal definitions of "failing to hustle".
|
|
| | | 52 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:36
|
TRS - my #49 was directed at MBJ, you didn't think it was directed at you?
hustle -
1. To jostle or shove roughly.
2. To convey in a hurried or rough manner: hustled the prisoner into a van.
3. To cause or urge to proceed quickly: hustled the board into a quick decision.
4. To gain by energetic effort: hustled a hot lunch.
|
|
| | | 53 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:38
|
hustling has always been attached to the act of running in my mind. "Lack of hustle" almost means "lack of running your hardest" in my mind.
|
|
| | | 54 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:38
|
moot
signed
moron
|
|
| | | 55 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:40
|
whitey...lol...brilliant minds think alike ;-)
I think we all just have different personal definitions of "failing to hustle" when I saw that poll on ESPN and read the choices I equated failing to hustle exactly how we each defined it.
I now see how others encompass a lot more into failing to hustle. Didn't mean to offend you Toral...if your definition differs I can now see why you would have voted the way you did. I apologize :-)
|
|
| | | 56 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:43
|
For the record, I am not calling anybody a moron...and I feel like a moron because I don't know who MBJ is directing 54 at or what it even means :)
|
|
| | | 57 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:44
|
whitey...I realized #49 was not directed at me...I wrote #51 before I read #50...
|
|
| | | 58 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:58
|
Did you see the poll on espn.com???
Do you think Pete Rose should be allowed back into baseball if he bet against his team?
40% No
30% Yes, if he admits wrongdoing
30% Yes
Obviously, the average sportsfan does not understand the seriousness of betting against his own team. 60% don't seem to think it would have been a big deal
|
|
| | | 59 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 15:04
|
I didn't see that one - but I noticed that the last poll they did on this issue had like 255,000 responses at one time. Sounds like some serious ballot stuffing was afoot.
|
|
| | | 60 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 15:04
|
I saw a different poll:
1) Do you believe Pete Rose bet on baseball games?
91.9% Yes
8.1% No
2) Do you believe Rose bet on Cincinnati Reds games while he was manager of the Reds?
57.0% Yes
43.0% No
3) Which of the following is closest to your opinion?
11.9% Rose should remain banned from baseball and the Hall of Fame for betting on baseball.
1.1% Rose should be reinstated to baseball and be eligible to be hired in baseball, but should not be elected to the Hall of Fame.
21.9% Rose should be elected to the Hall of Fame, but should remain banned from baseball for betting on games.
7.5% Rose should be reinstated and elected to the Hall of Fame because he did nothing wrong.
7.4% Rose should be reinstated and elected to the Hall of Fame because a player should not be banned for betting on baseball games.
50.2% Rose should be reinstated and elected to the Hall of Fame because, even though he bet on baseball games, he's paid the price.
4) If Pete Rose is reinstated by Major League Baseball, for which job would you want your favorite team to hire him?
21.9% Manager
31.8% Hitting coach
12.3% Broadcaster
33.9% None of the above -- I wouldn't want my favorite team to hire him
5) What is the worst transgression in baseball?
22.2% Betting on baseball games
19.7% Failing to hustle
30.8% Using cocaine
27.4% Using steroids
6) If a current player is found to have bet on baseball games, how should he be punished?
29.6% One-year ban
44.2% Five-year ban
26.3% Permanent ban
7) If Rose is reinstated, should Joe Jackson be reinstated and made eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame?
79.4% Yes
20.6% No
|
|
| | | 61 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 15:24
|
I think all players at some time in their careers fail to "hustle" (defining hustle as broadly as Toral did). Some are chronic non-hustlers, giving 90% their whole career, some may be only guilty of in a handful of times. I think this is part of the game, has to do with the character of the individual, and does not significantly undermine the integrity of the game. Hustlers are more valued than non-hustlers, all other things being equal.
I think what DOES undermine the integrity of the game is differential lack of hustle. Those players who hustle in certain non-random ways that unduly influence the outcome of one game more than another.
This sort of differential non-hustler is what gambling is likely to create, and why, though I generally am much more apt to damn based on outcome rather than some characteristic that creates the potential for that outcome (as Toral illustrates he does as well), I think gambling's potential to cause this differential non-hustling is worse than just "failure to hustle" in the non-differential sense.
|
|
| | | 62 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 15:49
|
Ouch. I'd consider using steroids a far more serious crime than using cocaine, at least in terms of baseball crimes. Using cocaine, as far as I know, doesn't cheat the integrity of the game.
|
|
| | | 63 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 16:07
|
Amazing that people could think Cocaine is the potential biggest problem in baseball. I am afraid those same people would be awful disappointed if they found out how many professional athletes use drugs like cocaine.
Almost all of the results of that poll confuse me...and since the poll is on espn.com you figure these people have at least some knowledge of sports. Almost makes me think that people are fed up with baseball and Selig so much that it severely influences the way they cast their vote.
|
|
| | | 64 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 19:39
|
Adding to the mix is Dowd's interview with the NY Post where he believes that, if he had the opportunity to continue the scope of his investigation, that evidence would have been found that proved that Rose bet against the Reds ! Yikes!
To be fair, that is Dowd just spouting off at the mouth and to my knowledge offered no evidence to support the point. But....this is the main person in charge of the investigation. While I figure it is NOT beyond him to hold a grudge or have an axe to grind, that is still a HUGE thing to say in an interview to be published!!!!
|
|
| | | 65 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 19:41
|
see posts #33 and #38, re: Dowd.
|
|
| | | 66 | Khahan
ID: 3511431012
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 09:56
|
1) Rose stated on day 1 that he did not bet on baseball games
2) Rose still maintains that stance
3) There is a lot of evidence to prove Rose's assertions wrong
4) Much of that evidence was gathered by Dowd. Dowd's own ethics and the evidence he 'uncovered' are questionable
5) Every witness that can support that Rose gambled has questionable ethics, legal and/or money problems and plenty of reason to lie
6) Most of what Dowd says (and people these days rely on) is just conjecture: If the investigation had not stopped, they probably would have found evidence.
My own conclusions: Rose is innocent until proven guilty. The 'evidence' against him is damning, but is also itself, very questionable. Until more evidence, which is not questionable, is brought to light, Rose should be given leeway.
|
|
| | | 67 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 11:12
|
To the statement that Rose should be considered innocent until proven guilty in post #66: The only reason they did not have some sort of baseball hearing or internal tribunal to hear both sides present the evidence is that because of this report, Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. Had Rose decided to contest these charges there would have been some sort of forum for these charges to be proven or refuted. So in effect he plea bargained because of the charges.
|
|
| | | 68 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:33
|
Further to JeffG's point.....why would Rose agree to a lifetime ban if there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him 'guilty'?? Was he trying to save face, knowing that he did indeed bet on baseball? Khahan - can you give me any other reason that Rose would agree to a lifetime ban?
My guess is Rose was nailed and the report findings are factual. Sure there is a lot of conjecture, and guys like Janzen (who said not only did he place bets for Rose but said they also dealt cocaine), Gioaosa (sp?) et. al. are far from angelic, but to me you don't accept a lifetime ban if you didn't have something to hide.
Have you guys seen the pics of the actual betting slips? It's very cool.
Let Pete Rose continue to freaking rot and out not be around baseball.
|
|
| | | 69 | Khahan
ID: 3511431012
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 14:01
|
Species, no I cannot give another reason. I'm not Pete Rose and cannot attest to what his reasoning was at the time.
He did agree to the lifetime ban, you are right. However, who is to say that proves gambled. Its an assumption everybody made (and its no giant leap of faith, I have to admit that). But if he had agreed under duress and actually is innocent, perhaps now he feels differently.
All he did was agree to the lifetime ban. That proves nothing. It makes it easy for everybody to make the obvious assumption, but that assumption is not necessarily true.
So I still say, until Rose comes out and says he agreed to the ban because he did bet on baseball, or until there is hard and irrefutable evidence, that people should keep an open mind.
|
|
| | | 70 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 14:21
|
Khahan - I hear what you are saying, but I think that your leap of faith is a lot wider than mine in interpreting Rose's motive for accepting the ban. Bluntly, I call yours leaping the Grand Canyon, and mine stepping off a curb.
Think about it. The rule states you are banned for life if you bet on baseball. Rose agrees to a lifetime ban....WHY? YES, the terms of the agreement state that MLB took *no official position* as to whether or not he bet on baseball. IMO, Rose cut that deal figuring he'd be let off eventually and he could keep his 'honor' intact. And he's so freaking arrogant and self-absorbed that even to this day he denies it....despite the sentiment that if he just admitted it and said he was sorry that he would be forgiven and re-instated.
IMO, Rose wanted to keep as much of his image as possible, and did NOT want a fair "hearing" (which he was indeed entitled to) that could be made public. Why? Because he did it and was accused of some other crimes including cocaine dealing. Rose has NEVER offered up a defense to the findings of the Dowd report. WHY????????????
Dowd's ethics could be in question. I admit that. But the evidence is overwhelming.
Lastly, does Faye Vincent have more credibility? I believe he was in a position of power in MLB when Bart Giamatti made the deal with Rose. Do you ever wonder why he (Vincent) is STILL so adamant about Rose NOT being reinstated? You have to figure he was included in the inner workings of the information and negotiations and his continued resentment towards Rose is founded upon the facts of the case, IMO.
Damn....I wish I had a link to this great site that presented a lot of the evidence about Rose. I'll write Neyer again and try to find it. He's pretty cool about responding. I too was a Rose sympathizer at one point --- until I read all of the evidence and will likely be against his reinstatement forever.
|
|
| | | 71 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 47130129
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 14:31
|
Fay Vincent was on Mike and the Mad Dog yesterday (660am in NYC) and he was saying that they were able to trace phone calls made by Rose to the bookies in the Cincinatti clubhouse for every Reds home game.
They were able to do this because Marge Schott was cheap and she wanted every phone call accounted for that was made from one of the phones in the clubhouse.
When Rose was asked why he would have been making those phone calls to a bookie, he had no reply.
|
|
| | | 72 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 14:37
|
Selig and Bob DuPuy offer observations on Dowd's conduct:
"According to a report in Friday's New York Daily News, sources close to Selig refuted a report that claimed Dowd had uncovered evidence Rose bet against the Reds.
"Do you think for a minute Bud would be considering this reinstatement of Rose if there were an iota of proof that (Rose) bet against the Reds?" one source familiar with Selig's deliberations with Bob DuPuy, MLB's chief operating officer and Selig's chief legal adviser, told the newspaper.
"This is McCarthyism at its worst."
link
Toral
|
|
| | | 73 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 16:25
|
Here is the link Species is likely referring to in post #70. Just found it doing a google search. Very good presentation of the facts and timeline regrding this case.
|
|
| | | 74 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 17:37
|
Excellent! Thanks JeffG.
Seriously fellas. Those of you who haven't really read up on the case before....or haven't in a while, should take an honest look at this site and the various links contained within.
What seems to be missing is Janzen's interview with Playboy, where he described in detail Rose's betting habits and how he went into coke to cover the losses.
|
|
| | | 75 | Khahan
ID: 41117420
Sun, Dec 15, 2002, 11:01
|
Species: I guess we're on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon here.
Although, the leap of faith I'm referring to does not have to do specifically with Rose's accepting the ban.
If you take a close look at the info to date, there is a lot of information that 'would' be revealed or 'could' be revealed. I find a lot of the evidence against Rose to be suspect.
I am not saying Rose is innocent of the charges. All I'm saying is he hasn't been convicted 'yet'.
|
|
| | | 76 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 10:09
|
According to this Cincinnati Enquirer story this morning, Rose admitted to two friends he bet on baseball, and will admit that publicly in exchange for full re-instatement.
That would be awfully ironic: Those who support his reinstatement do so overwhelmingly because they do not see there being any proof he bet on baseball. It'll be interesting what support remains when Rose admits it.
pd
|
|
| | | 77 | Catfish
Sustainer
ID: 5610392914
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 11:31
|
There was a story recently that the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame (yes, there is such a hallowed place) was considering inducting Pete Rose because he played six innings or whatever for the Expos way back when ... I never did hear if they made a decision.
|
|
| | | 78 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 11:40
|
He played for Montreal in 1984, playing 95 games, hitting .259 (not bad for a 43-year-old).
pd
|
|
| | | 79 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 11:40
|
The Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame has had a chequered past. For a number of years in between sites it was a bunch of boxes in someone's garage. One of its neat exhibits was a ball hit for a long home run by Babe Ruth in Toronto as a minor leaguer. Unfortunately some kids stole it and, being chased, threw it into Lake Ontario and it was never found.
|
|
| | | 80 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 11:42
|
Sorry, I forgot the story about Pete's nomination to ther hallowed Hall.
Toral
|
|
| | | 81 | MNG@othercomputer
ID: 29092519
Mon, Jan 27, 2003, 18:35
|
He deserves it.
|
|
|
|