Self Editor

Forum: base
Page 15734
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.

ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 566152116
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 10:45

No other media sources are yet reporting this story...if this ends up being true Baseball Prospectus has a true coup...I would like to be a fly on the wall of the offices of ESPN right now...they have to be scrambling trying to confirm this story.

Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 526482422
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 10:46

We have a blue hen on the wall there. Wonder if he'll pop in here.

I suggest that if Pete gets in the Hall, that they put a small ass next to his name. No admission of wrongdoing is right up his alley.

pd

Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 10:52

What surprises me is that according to this article, he signed all these documents before the season started...

According to several sources, Rose signed the agreement after a series of pre-season meetings between Rose, Hall of Fame member Mike Schmidt, and at different times, high-level representatives of Major League Baseball, including Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's Chief Operating Officer, and Allan H. "Bud" Selig, Commissioner of Major League Baseball.

R9
ID: 3740128
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 12:03

The link from 'a lenthy investigation' from TRS's link is a good read, if you have 30 minutes to spare.

Taxman
Leader
ID: 70342912
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 12:22

of course the Jayson stark article Jayson Stark TSN article conversley states (predicts?) the immediate future for Rose after reinstatement as follows:

"There will be a probationary period preventing that type of employment initially. But even once the probation expires, there is expected to be a clause requiring the commissioner to approve any job Rose is offered inside baseball"

I guess if you had been an Arkansas governor, you would comment, "Depends on your definition of gambling"

Jackhammers
ID: 43424210
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 12:28

ESPN reports that Bob DuPuy is denying this rumor.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/story?id=1594520

j o s h
ID: 597201118
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 12:54

Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball President and Chief Operating Officer, issued the following statement regarding an internet report about the status of Pete Rose:

blue hen
Leader
ID: 34761212
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 13:06

I actually heard about Dupuy before I heard about the story itself.

'Major League Baseball's chief operating officer, Bob DuPuy, shot down a Baseball Prospectus report Tuesday that claimed Pete Rose already has signed an agreement to be reinstated in 2004, calling it "totally unfounded, totally unsubstantiated" and "journalistically irresponsible."'

Not at all what we've come to expect from BP. I wonder what's going on.

Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 526482422
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 13:12

Rotowire bought them.

;)

KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 5577810
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 13:15

From the BP article, "A spokesman for Major League Baseball denied this report. Baseball Prospectus stands by its story."

MLB probably just wants to release the info on their terms and will deny everything until they make their official release.

ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 566152116
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 15:25

BP is a very reputable site...they must have some strong info if they were willing to release this story and it confirms it is strong that they are willing to stand by the original story after MLBs denial.

Everything has been pointing to this happening...MLB has been positioning this for awhile as a PR move.

ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 566152116
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 16:51

Interview with writer of the story...

Who are your sources? I know you can't name names.

I've got a source in Cincinnati, in the Reds organization, a source in the MLB offices and an independent outside-baseball source. We've been following this one since about Saturday. And then when Pete Rose said he had a deal in place, kind of hinted at it in "Sunday Night Conversation" on ESPN, we really went after it whole hog.

Ender
Donor
ID: 13443221
Wed, Aug 13, 2003, 10:11

I heard Johnny Bench interviewed on Dan Patrick recently and got the feeling that there was some sort of agreement in place, but Pete wasn't keeping up his end of the bargain. Bench was very explicit in saying that Pete needed to admit himself into a gamblers' anonymous type counseling program and that if he was smart he would do it now before it came out as a requirement. That way it would at least appear to be voluntary.

I am sure there was a bit more info there in light of this BP story, but I can't recall much other than what I stated above. Anyone else catch the interview? Patrick was broadcasting from his golf tournament about a week and a half ago.

KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 5577810
Wed, Aug 13, 2003, 16:30

Rose pays his taxes in full. Part of the bargain?

Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Wed, Aug 13, 2003, 17:05

No wonder the NBA has it's problems when the Commish is also Pete Rose's accountant!

David Stern, Rose's accountant, said this year that the former Reds' star wasn't attempting to avoid taxes in his 1998 return but simply couldn't pay the entire amount owed when he filed his return.

The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Wed, Aug 13, 2003, 18:03

David Stern is still an accountant? Does he already have a job as the NBA commish?

rockafellerskank
ID: 3011562918
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 10:15

I'm surprised! Not that Pete bet on baseball, but that he finally admits it! I guess he's either trying to increase book sales or has figured out this is the only way he gets in the HOF in this lifetime.

Link

Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 53439419
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 13:48

Here's my take on the whole Pete Rose opera:

This topic always brings up really great discussion whenever I visit Mr. Cod Piece Sr.

We both hate that lying S.O.B. more than anything else that isn't a terrorist.

Let's run down Charlie Hustle's lifetime stats shall we:

Serves time in prison for income tax evasion. I believe it was about 1/2 a year. Funny thing about it too was the prison was in Marion Illinois, home of Ray Fosse.

Lied to the media, fans, and baseball about betting on baseball for about fifteen years(?).

He bet on baseball which is a direct assault on the integrity of the game which, in my opinion, is the worst kind of infraction anyone can commit in baseball.

How would you feel about paying some hard earned dough to go to a game that is partially fixed because ole Petey decides to gamble on it while he was a manager or even a player?

I just hope that the people who've eaten the Pete Rose Applesause and drank the Pete Rose Punch wake up and realize that their hero thought so much of his fans that he lied to them for nearly two decades. What a statesman. What a man of the people. He truly shows the qualities of a Hall Of Famer, doesn't he? This guy is a piece of sh!t.

I also love the name Pete choose for his book, "My Prison Without Bars". I was at a sports memorabilia show two months ago to have Kerry Wood sign a jersey. Pete Rose was there too signing autographs. I don't know too many inmates that get paid hefty sums of money to just simply sign their name. Somehow, this "prisoner" is able to make a substantial living just from memorabilia. Then he's got to invade my living room by playing his violin about being banned from baseball.

This is high time that Selig grows some stones and says that a lifetime ban IS a lifetime ban. No excuses.

I knew his nickname was Charlie Hustle, but I think it gets a new meaning with his admission after lying for fifteen years. He is a Hustle indeed.

Lastly, as a baseball fanatic, I never really got that angry about the strike and the constant labor strife. I know a lot of people abandoned the game after the labor unrest of the 90's. If Pete Rose is allowed back into baseball and is then voted into the Hall Of Fame, I say here and now that I give up baseball. I do admit that I will follow the Cubs, but I will never again step foot into a stadium, play a fantasy sport, or give them any of my money. There has to be a line in the sand when it comes to integrity and punishments must be enforced.

I'm not sure if I believe what Bob DuPuy said about the rumor. I think this is a case where if there's smoke there's fire.

Tree
ID: 2804211
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 14:40

couldn't disagree more. The HoF is filled with miscreants and scumbags. as long as Rose didn't bet AGAINST his own team, he's not nearly as bad as some of the folks in the Hall - ahem, Ty Cobb, ahem.

Rose's onfield numbers show that he belongs in the Hall. The Hall-of-Fame should not be about citizenship. It should be about what you bring to the field of play.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 14:44

Not defending Rose, but I have a question. Does you really think Rose actually bet against his own team? I believe he gambled on baseball, but I have a hard time believing that any bookie would take bets from him against his own team and an even harder time believing that a competitor like Rose would shave points to win cash.

Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 53439419
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 15:04

Tree: Its a free country, you have every right to disagree with me. I'll never argue against Pete Rose stat wise. Strictly speaking from stats, he belongs.

Pete Rose isn't the only SOB to ever play baseball. However, how many of those were recipients of lifetime bans? They don't just hand those out, you've got to earn it.

Maybe I'm a purist, but I feel the game needs to have some sort of integrity to it.

TB: Is that short for Terry Bradshaw or Tampa Bay or something else?

"Does you really think Rose actually bet against his own team?"

My gut feeling is yes, but I have no evidence one way or the other. That is just my opinion. Its like when your parents bust you with a bottle of Jack Daniels in your closet. Little do they know about the stack of porno mags, cigarettes, and beer cans that they never find.

Would a competitor like Pete Rose throw a game? As a manager or a player I'm not sure that with all the variables involved with the game that he could. However, he could easily make a bet about which pitch a pitcher is going to throw or if Player A will attempt to steal a base.

Scenarios like that go towards fixing a game because you need to ask yourself if having Player A steal a base is the right thing to do strategically in that game.

Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 21:57

I couldn't agree with Cosmo more, nor disagree with Tree more. Rose is a crook, a criminal, and not just for tax evasion but quite likely for other things as well. But as Tree points out, plenty of racist MF'ers like Ty Cobb are in there......but Rose's transgression was indeed made in the clubhouse of a baseball stadium . i.e. There are plenty of drug addicts, liars, racists and crooks who did things outside of the confines of the baseball field. Rose DID IN FACT bet on baseball from his own clubhouse phone! So to argue that things that he did off the field don't count, well that doesn't hold water!

Rose bet on baseball. There is a rule against that which mandates a lifetime ban. What Rose did was horribly shameful and completely unbecoming of a Hall of Famer. TO HELL with Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Fame!

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 21:58

I had "does anyone..." and thought I changed it to " do you..."

It was an open question to anyone. I can't see him betting against his own team. Pretty stupid to be gambling, but flat out sinful to bet against your own team. If they ever had proof that he bet against his own team, he would rightfully be banned for life, otherwise I believe in the innocent until proven guilty motto.

TB are my initials.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 22:12

He apparently admits to betting for his team (52 times in the original report, IIRC). But betting with his team is never a good thing (besides, of course, the fact that he knew the penalty against it and did it anyway). What's to say he didn't work his players harder in those games he needed them to win so that they were unable to work thos games which happened not to appear on his betting slip that say?

He knew the penalty, and did it anyway. If there are others in the Hall who did the same thing, boot them. Otherwise it's apples & oranges.

pd

Tree
ID: 2804211
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 22:52

plenty of racist MF'ers like Ty Cobb are in there......but Rose's transgression was indeed made in the clubhouse of a baseball stadium

um, yea, so were some of Ty Cobb's. let's not forget that he beat up a handicapped fan inside of the stadium. he was then given an "indefinite suspension". interestingly enough, this attack came just one day after Cobb attacked another fan

as a result, his teammates organized the first player's strike, and he was reinstated and paid only a 50 dollar fine.

Cobb was a son of a bitch, and some of his trangressions were in the stadium too. the HoF is not about integrity, it's about skills on the field.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Sun, Jan 04, 2004, 23:03

And about not violating an agreement which says "Do this and you are banned."

JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 1584348
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 09:25

My 2 cents: Pete Rose's banishment from baseball should continue be lifetime, in regards to ever being able to work or collect salary from a major league team. That should be his punishment for screwing with the integrity of the game. I do not buy the fact he lied about this gambling for the last 15 years because his agreement with Giamatti stated he did not have to ever acknowledge or deny the charges. Whether he denied it or not in the past, the proof was always there.

Pete Rose the player is a hall of famer. If the writers or veterans comittee agree within the parameters of the hall of fame vote process, then he should be enshrined. However, clearly on his plaque along with his accomplishments should be some text stating that he was given a lifetime ban from baseball for violating the gambling policy and gambling on the sport while active in the league.

Pete Rose, the ex-player could be allowed to make a limited number of 'official' ballpark trips per season (no more than one a month), where he can do anything ceremonial like throw out a first ball or participate in an alumni game, but he should not be allowed to appear any more than any other Reds alumni. He should not be allowed to coach during spring training.

Pete's confession means nothing. The above was my opinion before he 'came clean'. The evidence was overwhelming before, so he is really just stating something that most of us took as factual anyway.

Species
ID: 569221717
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 12:17

Tree #25 - then kick Cobb's ass out before letting Rose in. Using Cobb as an excuse to let Rose in is self-defeating at best. And you say the HOF isn't about integrity? The integrity of the game itself means nothing to you? How can the Hall of Fame, a SHRINE to what baseball is about, not be about the integrity of the game?

Rose did all of this to himself, and he is such an arrogant SOB that he's lied for 15 years about it. To me, there are two reasons why he is admitting publicly that he bet on baseball:

1 - He only has 2 years left of HOF eligibility on the writers ballot. The Veterans Committee is said to be against allowing him in (save for the Bench's and Morgan's of the world).

2 - His book is due out Wednesday and the first printing is something ridiculous like 500,000 copies. That's 500,000 suckers who are going to plunk down 25 bones to hear Rose cry like a baby about how he's been mistreated due to his own blatant disregard for the rules and integrity of baseball.

Take your crying and shove it, Pete.

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 16:16

My take on this -

1) I don't think Rose deserves to be readmitted to baseball.
2) I think it will (unfortunately) happen.
3) The whole way he is finally confessing to what he adamantly denied for so long - with the hyped book sales and sales-pitch-for-a-book interviews -smacks of shameless profiteering on his blatant willingness to ignore the rules everyone else must follow.
4) His confession, given in a manner saying "I am confessing, like you told me to do ...now you owe me reinstatement" also is incredibly distasteful. I feel even LESS SYMPATHY for him.
5) Supposedly Rose finally has "come clean": except he is denying he bet from the clubhouse, which there is TONS of evidence to the contrary. (Just like the issue of whether he bet on baseball - til now he denied any bets on baseball though there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.)
6) I suspect his "never in the clubhouse" is fostered by an attempt to get a later job as a manager.
7) As to his crime, I think bets on the game endanger the Integrity of Competition (ie, raises questions of whether games are fixed) - which are not the same as "off the field" issues. This "crime" goes to the heart of what baseball is selling to the public: honest competition. That is what qualifies it as a "no second chance" thing IMO.
8) If you reinstate Rose from being "permanently ineligible" then what about Joe Jackson? What he did was far less than Rose, and he has been banned for 90 years. And Shoeless Joe was a HOF-er without doubt.
9) The only compromise I might be at all comfortable with is this: Rose is not "reinstated" until AFTER he is only eligible by Veterans (ex-players) Committee, not by sportwriters. The vets had to follow the same rules. So let him be judged by his peers as to the acceptable consequences. (And this is interesting: because they understand the issues, many HOF-ers have said they will never go to the HOF again if Pete is admitted.)
10) Dont let him be judged/selected by sportswriters: my observation is that the sportswriters dont care about rules, they just care about popular opinion. They prove their point of view by running a poll, rather than wrestling with issues of fairness, and point to the popular results as the validation for their view. (Case in point: all the hubbub about USC "getting robbed" of a chance to play for the BCS title - when both LSU and OU beat them out according to the rules everyone had agreed to play by. Sportswriters moaned in unison and went wailing on show after show.) The sportswriters have no vested interest in the game itself.
11) ESPN has an "Outside the Lines" look at the issue, that is really good.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 16:25

I agree on the vets, Gump. They are the ones who are more likely to give him a hard time (since they had to follow the same rules). If he gets their approval he probably deserves to be in. But not before. And certainly not now. "I admit now that I did it" is not a valid argument for avoiding punishment for having done it in the first place.

pd

Khahan
ID: 521117920
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 16:29

Its not like Pete Rose did NOTHING for the sport of baseball. He is Charlie Hustle. He is the all-time Hits king. He contributed a great amount of history to baseball. He contributed years and years of hard nosed play.
Those feats and accomplishments should be remembered in the hall. That is what the Hall of Fame is about (at least me to). Its a memorial to the greatest players and feats of the game.
As for Rose being able to continue in the sport, that should not be allowed.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 16:40

The accomplishments already are there, Khahan. His accomplishments are listed (the bat is there from his record setting hit is as well).

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 17:09

KHAHAN - The Hall of Fame honors the accomplishments. The records are there, the names are there etc. The great teams are honored, with the players like Pete named. The additional honor, of having a plaque with his name, is the only thing Pete doesnt have.

And rightly so. It is something that his betting on baseball - in blatant disregard of the consequences, figuring the rules were irrelevant cause he wouldnt get caught - has disqualified him from. Pete is just like Shoeless Joe (one of the all-time greats), whose crime was a failure to rat out his teammates and who was reportedly the best player of that day, but who has also been excluded.

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 17:14

One of the things I think is missing in the above arguments is this:

The vote about whether Rose deserves to be in strictly based on his numbers and what he did on-the-field as a competitor is an unquestioned yes.

Those on the side of upholding the ban may have meant to imply this in their arguments, however, my understanding is that the ban is in place for what he did while a MANAGER. That said, I find nothing wrong with allowing him to be voted in as a PLAYER. If MLB sees fit to continue his ban from working for any of its' franchises, I have no problem with that, but to say that his off-field transgressions were any worse than Cobb or any of many HOF'ers is a bit ludicrous in my opinion. That's tantamount to saying that it's OK for Wells to admit he pitches games while drunk is any less reprehensible than Gooden having pitched when "coked-up". Yes I was a huge Rose fan when I was young, but that's not why I think he should go in - he belongs because the numbers he produced measure up to the greatest ever. In today's number-crazy climate where debate about who belongs in the Hall (or even who deserves to be on the ballot at times), often comes down to the smallest digits, Rose's numbers are unquestionable.

I agree with many of you and wish the "good-old-days" were still around, and that we held our "heroes" to higher standards than we expected the average individuals in our society to live up to, but that's no longer the case. When our "leaders" (i.e. - politicians) are required to be beyond reproach, THEN I believe we can start expecting more from other public individuals. Those of you screaming about the integrity of the game seem to lose site of something we love to hear our "heroes" say - "I play the game because I love it". Never as a player has Rose's love of the game, effort, or dedication to it ever been in doubt. Those who say he shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to make a living writing books, doing trade shows, or accepting speaking engagements will have a hard time convincing me they're in the right as long as former Presidents of this country whose ethics came into question at times before, during, or after their terms of service are afforded the same opportunities.

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 17:26

Furthermore, am I the only one who finds it terribly hypocritical that MLB continues to celebrate his on-field accomplishments as well as market them and benefit from them while trying to keep him hidden in the closet? How many times have you seen his collision with Fosse used to promote the All-Star game? I've never been to the HOF, but how many people pay for entry to get to see many of Rose's items displayed while MLB retains the profits? IF he's not to be enshrined, that's fine - give his items back to him, black him out of the pictures, and let him do what he wants with them. You can't have it both ways - if the profits from the display of his memorabilia continue to be accepted by the Hall, he deserves to be in - otherwise, remove him completely.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 17:30

The HoF is a not-for-profit group, separate from MLB. They get donated items from MLB, but they fund their own organization through donations and fund raising.

If one could split Pete into two people he can certainly get into the HoF as a player. Hell, I know a few people who would love to split Pete in two (or more) pieces. But the ban was on him as a person.

pd

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 17:51

Their income ALSO comes from the ticket sales for visitors PD...that's where I find the hypocrisy - "We're willing to let all of your accomplishments be recognized while we profit from them Pete, but you're just too unethical for us to display an individual plaque."

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 18:00

Well, sure--MLB fans buy those tickets.

But your argument makes no sense: If they did not have those accomplishments in the Hall they would not be doing their job. And doing their job does not mean letting in a man who broke the rules for eligibility.

I see no hypocrisy in the recogniztion of his accomplishments (nor in the recognition of the accomplishments of other players who are not individually enshrined).

pd

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 18:09

CLV - You agree that it is proper to ban Pete from future baseball activity. But you assert that he should be let in the HOF cause (1) what he did wrong was as a manager, and (2) he didnt do anything worse than anyone else "off the field" and (3) the HOF has Pete-related stuff in its exhibits already, which it profits from.

Re the baseball activity - that is what Pete is angling for. If you reinstate him, that is what he will demand: his "right" to earn a living in baseball. I think the HOF angle is the focus, but the ability to manage is often overlooked, and it would be very problematic to have him in charge of a team again.

Re 1 - I have heard that one tossed out before. But it is ludicrous. As PD insightfully noted, you cant split a person - you can't put in Pete the Player while saying Pete the Manager isn't eligible. What he did as a manager was still part of his place in the game. Besides, for a time he was a player-manager too, which would blur any line you wish to draw.

Re 2 - Yes, what he did was not more morally wrong than some actions of many other players. But baseball has rightly deemed one rule above all others, because they determined long ago that without it, baseball could evolve in the public's mind into what we see in Pro Wrestling: an exhibition of skills, rather than legit competition. Baseball was headed down that path at one time. They stopped it. Thats why the rule is so hard - cause once you get a game where people dont trust the legitimacy of the outcome, you lose the fabric of competition that is the basis of what you are selling.

Baseball is not in the business of "moral judgments" nor are they trying to be - they are merely trying to make sure they have a legit contest. If a person gets involved in gambling on the game, it is too hard to later sort out which side they bet on. And once you are involved with big gambling, those contacts can lead to offers asking if you will fix a game - thus, no contacts with that element are ever allowed. Baseball has to draw a hard line SOMEWHERE - and they did, but Pete decided he was too good to be punished. That is his fault, not baseball's.

Re 3 - the HOF is about teams that are recognized, accomplishments, historic happenings, and the like. It is about the HISTORY of the game, which Pete was paid to be a part of. That does not mean you are required to give him a plaque if you dont deem him worthy of one - and violating the Rule That Draws a Line From Gambling makes him unworthy of a plaque, in baseball's eyes. Everyone else that has mentions and great accomplishments in the HOF is NOT necessarily a HOF-er. Some are, some arent.

Tree
ID: 2804211
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 20:52

Re 1 - I have heard that one tossed out before. But it is ludicrous. As PD insightfully noted, you cant split a person - you can't put in Pete the Player while saying Pete the Manager isn't eligible.

why not? the Basketball Hall of Fame has two people - Lenny Wilkins and John Wooden in the Hall seperately, as coaches, and as players.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 22:39

Tree, non-players are put forth by the Veterans' Committee. Rose is unlikely, at best, to be elected by them even if he could be eligible (which he is not, being on baseball's ineligible list).

pd

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 12:13

All due respect guys, but I'm just not buying that side of the argument. As everyone has stated before, we're just expressing opinions here, and your decision to disagree is as sacred as my right to have my opinion. I personally feel that the powers that be are taking the wrong stance, and have yet to hear an opinion that would even begin to have me rethink my position. Everyone keeps touting this "proof" that what he did was so wrong, that he bet against/on his team, etc. I for one have never seen that concrete evidence, and yes, if it was presented I would have to restructure my thinking, but until it's provided I'll choose not to. The man liked to gamble, so what? I'm a former golf professional, and made a sizable chunk of money gambling, and I personally don't think I am any less ethical than the next guy. I've always been too competitive to "sandbag" myself into a position to make it easier for me to win, and I don't think I've ever possessed one-tenth of the competitive fire Rose has/had. IF all these people of "high morals" continue to dictate these types of situations many things will change, and not necessarily for the better. Rose will be the precedent, not the endgame. Michael Jordan doesn't belong in the basketball HOF, nor Charles Barkley, nor Dean Smith. As I said before, I have no problem whatsoever if MLB wants to uphold his ban and keep him from holding any organizational positions with its' franchises. However, you guys mentioned before that MLB and the HOF are entirely separate organizations and entities. That being said, the HOF IS profitting from Rose's accomplishments as an MLB player, and in so doing is committing no less of a gaffe than Rose did fifteen years ago. Spin it however you like, the only people with any control over the situation are MLB executives, and they continue to profit from Rose's likeness and memorabilia while having acted as judge and jury while sentencing him to death (as it were), without having to provide the full scope of the evidence they used to settle on their verdict. Last year began with the commissioner's office all but saying he'd be pardoned if he admitted to having gambled - now they're having second thoughts? Sure looks like someone's hedging their bets to me.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 12:24

No less a "gaffe?" With all due respect (sincerely), I LOL at that. He bet on baseball, and has admitted to doing so. This is not a "gaffe."

pd

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 12:43

RE #39 F Gump...there is part of the hipocrisy I'm talking about - you say that "Baseball is not in the business of 'moral judgements' nor are they trying to be". Nothing could be farther from the truth - these men who have made their fortunes by taking advantage of various tax loopholes, receiving questionable stock tips, etc. are now standing before us and saying that Pete Rose is ethically inadequate to deserve a place in the HOF? Please !

As for Rose "angling" for another manager's job, aren't you (and the baseball "representatives") putting the cart before the horse a bit? As stated before, just because he's in the HOF doesn't mean ANY organization in baseball has to hire him. If they feel his past actions outweigh the positives he could POSSIBLY bring, no one will hold a gun to their head and force them to hire him. My understanding is that he was asked the question of whether he'd like the chance to manage the Reds again, and he responded yes. I'd love to have the chance to manage the Braves or Yankees, or coach the Redskins or Carolina's basketball team, but does that have any bearing on whether I'll ever get that chance? Obviously not.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 12:55

The man only knows baseball, clv, and he can't work until he's off the list. Everything he does is trying to get himself off that ineligible list. Of course he's angling for a baseball job!

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 13:11

If you want to hear my opinion explained a little differently (and possibly better), read Jayson Stark's article on espn.com right now. It's the crux of my stance. Everyone seems to want to lump the two questions into one - should he be eligible for the ballot? In my opinion (and Stark's) yes. The question has to end there before you ask question number two - should he be given a job within baseball again? That's not up to any of us. It's up to the commissioner and the individual franchises who might consider him, but is an entirely different issue than the first question. The man has done what he was told to do Bud, now live up to your side of this and put him on the ballot. If you or the other owners don't wish to hire him again, THAT's entirely up to you.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 13:45

Stark says:

He may have done enough and said enough to be allowed back onto the Hall of Fame ballot. But he needs to do more.

This doesn't sound like your argument at all. In fact, in the piece Stark doesn't sound convinced that Rose has done enough to warrant a HoF ballot spot, which is the opposite of what you are saying.

pd

Species
ID: 569221717
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 13:45

PD #43 - and not only was it a bit more than just a "gaffe", but there were 400-something "gaffes", including a reported 47 on his own team (but always to win, FWIW).

I love Rose's response as to why he bet on baseball: "Because I didn't think I'd get caught"

Is it JUST me, or can you intimate from that response that he KNEW it was wrong but just didn't care? He's such an arrogant ass.

I can't wait for the book to come out. I really believe there will be a legitimate arrogance and lack of contrition in there that I hope will make the Rose believers give this a 2nd look.

Species
ID: 569221717
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 13:48

clv #46 - As I understand it, in order for Selig to even consider reinstating Rose, he gave him a bit of a laundry list of things to do......again before it could even be considered, not a guarantee of reinstatement should he fess up and apologize (which he's only doing half-assed and to promote his book, IMO).

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 14:13

He says it word-for-word PD:

"He may have done enough and said enough to be allowed back onto the HOF ballot. But he needs to do more. We would let Pete Rose work in baseball, but not the way he wants to work." - "But should Pete Rose ever be allowed to manage again? Not off what we've heard and read so far this week."

My comment all along is he deserves to go on the ballot. If the powers-that-be in baseball deem him unfit to participate as a manager again, I absolutely support that. Again, my comment is that you have to separate the two issues because they're not one-and-the-same. Besides, there are no guarantees that Rose will be voted in if he's on the ballot. All I'm saying is that he's done what he was asked to do, so I feel he deserves to be put on the ballot as he was told he would be. If the BBWAA senses there's a backlash and doesn't vote him in, so be it. I agree that he's far from having done enough to be allowed to be associated with the game on a day-to-day basis, or "work" in it as a manager yet, but that's a different issue, as well as not my call.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 14:18

Well, he wasn't promised a ballot spot. MLB promised to consider his case when he met certain conditions, that he might or might not have completed. It never was a "do this and you get on the ballot."

Stark never says he should be on the ballot. He says he should be allowed to work in baseball at MLB's discretion. You say he should go on the ballot, Stark says "not yet" and you claim Stark is backing you up on it. Well, no, he's not.

pd

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 14:22

The only thing keeping him from being on the ballot is the lifetime ban. IF he's reinstated and allowed to work in the game, he's automatically eligible to be added to the ballot. MLB can't reinstate him and also keep him off the ballot - they go hand-in-hand.

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 14:30

If you don't think Stark's of the same opinion, fine. Try Dibble's column, or "The Scarlet Rose", or one of the others. Should he be allowed to manage? Not in my opinion. Does he deserve to be in the HOF? Yes.

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 14:34

From another of the columns:

"But while the Hustler should be eligible for the Hall of Fame (as long as the plaque mentions his gambling), the ban should continue for his active participation in baseball. It's one thing for a museum to honor Rose for his playing career but a compulsive liar and gambler with more career debts than hits should never be allowed back in baseball in a capacity that could influence the outcome of a game or a season."

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 15:18

CLV - you said "Everyone keeps touting this "proof" that what he did was so wrong, that he bet against/on his team, etc. I for one have never seen that concrete evidence, and yes, if it was presented I would have to restructure my thinking, but until it's provided I'll choose not to."

Pete Rose himself has now admitted that he did so. That isn't proof enough for you???? You cant paint yourself as objective in the least.

Furthermore, the evidence has been in the public domain for a LONG time and it has always been overwhelming. They even have betting slips with his fingerprints!

The only thing to the contrary was Pete saying "the investigator made it all up cause he was out to get me." You probably bought into THAT argument also. Rose is a liar and a fraud, and though that doesnt make him a bad baseball player, it does make it stupid to accept his assertions when he tries to contradict obvious evidence.

I suspect that you will continue to myopically whitewash Pete's actions regardless of any additional arguments presented to the contrary. You admitted he was your hero growing up, and heroes don't fall easily in our estimation.

ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 566152116
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 15:19

I do not understand how people do not recognize how serious an issue it is that Pete was betting while managing or playing even if he bet on his own team to win. How about on days when Pete didn't bet on his team to win? Was he inadvertantly letting the bookies know there was a problem that day? Was he letting his better relievers rest on those days so they would be ready for the big bet tomorrow? Did his bookie call him on the phone and say "Pete, looks like you have been having some bad luck...do you think you guys are going to lose today? I will be sending Knuckles and Rocko over to collect some cash today...or maybe we can work out a deal..." When Pete is betting maybe the closer goes two innings today...maybe the starter throws more pitches.

Maybe Pete never threw a game but then again maybe he did...we now know he certainly was gambling. We also know that he lost a lot of money gambling. Losing money can lead to desperate actions. By gambling on games he is involved in he is threatening the basic foundation of the sport. Whether he ever did fix or throw anything is inconsequential...he put himself in position that everything he was involved with should be doubted.

I don't give him any credit for admitting guilt...there was plenty of evidence that said he did it so most people already knew he did it. Only reason he is admitting anything now is to sell his book and benefit from his admission. Really makes me have less respect for the guy as he is now admitting he has flat out lied for the past 14 years about his gambling.

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 15:29

CLV - You said "Last year began with the commissioner's office all but saying he'd be pardoned if he admitted to having gambled"

That is total and utter BS. The commissioner's office never said any such thing, nor did it make any implicit promises. All it said was that a confession was a necessary PART of the process. Pete Rose tries to twist things to put the onus on them, but it wasnt promised in public in any such fashion. And it doesnt have the ring of truth as a private thing either - he is very weak in how he asserts it, cause he is trying to gain public approval and support WITHOUT being obvious that he is severely overstating the case.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 15:36

I agree, Chicago.

I wonder if all those people who want him in the HoF have asked themselves why he should be there. Oh, I know about the accomplishments (was lucky to have seen him play myself), but in light of his lies why do people keep pushing for him to be in the Hall? I genuinely don't understand it.

pd

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 15:38

TRS - I agree with you 100%. People try to minimize the gambling, and excuse it by saying baseball is merely making a "moral judgment" by punishing such behavior.

It is no such thing. This is not tantamount to saying "we are demanding upstanding citizens" - rather, it is baseball's way to try to keep the competition less endangered from being fixed.

Yes it has some element of "morality" to it, but it was designed to eliminate a problem that the game had. They still allow jerks and thugs and bad people to play - but baseball doesnt want to open up the door to gamblers and fixes. Fair enough, IMO.

I think baseball has a right to draw the rules anywhere they want to - and when you play the game, you accept the rules. Those are the "rules of major league baseball" and if you want to be a part of what they do, you have to follow their rules. Pete knew this rule and how important it is - baseball HAMMERS the rule at its players over and over. He broke it, he knew the consequences, so be it.

Species
ID: 569221717
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 15:49

Agree with TRS, and especially love "Knuckles and Rocko".....lmao

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 18:31

Still missing my point altogether, but I haven't disagreed with anything strongly to any of the points you guys are making. The evidence I was referring to wanting to see was that he bet on the team to lose, not to win. Regardless of whether I loved to watch him play when I was growing up, I think you're a little off base TRS with the statement "How about on days he didn't bet on his team to win? Was he inadvertently letting the bookies know there was a problem that day?" This type of thought process can be extended well beyond who he bet on...say an executive with AOL decides to invest his earnings on something other than AOL stock (for whatever reason). Is he in turn inadvertently letting financial advisors know there's an emerging problem within the company?

If baseball "has the right to draw the rules anywhere they want to", is it not sending much worse messages to the young and impressionable fans you all so desparately want to protect by agreeing to let rapists, drug addicts, and steroid abusers continue to make millions of dollars a year when the toughest fines and suspensions it hands out for such offenses to amount to no more than a drop in the bucket and a few days off work?

Everyone draws what they want from all this, and it seems to me most of you are missing my point...this is not about whether I want Rose in the HOF because I liked him as a player - it's more about the fact that the selective processes continue with no end in sight. As long as Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire continued to hit HRs and put fans in the seats, who cares if they're shooting themselves full of performance-enhancing drugs or corking their bats? As long as the ticket-buyers continued to buy licensed merchandise with Strawberry and Gooden's likenesses or number on the back, who cares if they snort up the millions they're paid to play? As long as the fans and the Yankees organization don't mind Wells antics or auto-biography, who cares if he's getting sauced before he pitches? My statement was that Rose deserves to be on the ballot because of his performance as a player. IF the BBWAA feels he's not fit to be elected, so be it, but having two or three people with such high ethical standards as Selig and Giamatti make that decision for everyone is just wrong in my opinion.

Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 18:50

In a shocking revelation, Rose's runner asserts that Rose INDEED made bets from the clubhouse:

"I was there, and we did it every day" per Thomas Gioiosa

Admittedly, Gioiosa is a twice-convicted drug dealer (dealings that another Rose associate, Janzen I think, claims Rose was involved in....but that's another story) and not exactly a Saint in terms of his own credibility. However, ESPN reports that in his book Rose admits that Gioiosa was his runner for bets, so it's certainly coming from the horse's mouth.

John Dowd's report found that Rose bet from the Reds' clubhouse as well.

Gotta love this part of the story: "Gioiosa said Rose would use information from telephone conversations with other managers to help decide which teams to bet on."

I could see it now. "Hey Sparky, how's Morris' arm today? Feeling good? You benching anybody today I should know about?" lol

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 14826271
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 18:58

Do you guys think that Rose betting on baseball, but not against his team is just as bad as betting against his team?

I don't and I don't think they deserve the same punishment.

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 20:39

Species - you said "Rose's runner asserts that Rose INDEED made bets from the clubhouse"

Pete still denies that, but he has been known to blatantly lie when it suits him, I believe ...lol

Hal McCoy, longtime Reds beat reporter, made an interesting observation. He said that prior to games, he would at times observe Pete making "important calls" to AL managers, just before their games, inquiring about who was healthy, how the players were playing etc. He asked Pete why he was making such calls, since the AL had nothing to do with the Reds. The reply was that it was just to keep up with what was going on around baseball. McCoy's (obvious) take now, is that Pete was gathering inside info to use in making bets.

McCoy also said he saw the notebook that is now known to have been Pete's betting notebook, a red book - and that it was ALWAYS right with him, and consulted in the clubhouse.

Dowd report says with certainty that Pete made bets immediately prior to Reds' games. They have exact times that calls were made to the bookies, from phone records, as well as the starting times of Reds' games on the same days.

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 20:53

MBJ: I do (#24). When a bet is placed on the team by the manager, they simply are not able to act in the best interests of the team anymore. A bet puts an irrevocable conflict of interest.

pd

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 21:19

MYBOYJACK - You said "Do you guys think that Rose betting on baseball, but not against his team is just as bad as betting against his team?"

Obviously you can list a whole set of things that are worse than others.
Okay - not betting
Next - betting but not on sports
Next - betting on sports but not baseball
Next - betting on baseball but not your team
Next - betting on your team but not to lose
Next - betting on your team to lose but still trying to win
Next - betting on your team to lose and not trying as hard
Next - fixing the game to make your team lose
Next - fixing the game to make your team lose, and anonymously betting on it - stealing money of innocents who take your bet thinking the game is fair
Next -fixing two games and ...
Next - fixing the game and killing people to cover it up
Next - etc etc etc
You can always find something worse than what you did, and also find something better.

So where do you draw the line? And what about the fact that even Pete himself admits that one leads to another - he claims that he bet on other sports, then it came April and he needed something else to bet on. He also admits that once he was gambling, it made sense to bet on baseball games since it was what he knows best.

What happens when you are on a losing streak? How do you get even? Do you then bet on your own games, since you know them best? ...And then if you have lost a lot and are very much in debt (as even Pete admits he got), how do you catch up? Might you even consider a quick "one-time, I promise myself it will never happen again" bad game that will bring a loss, as well as bring lots of cash from the bookies?

Baseball had all of those things to think about when they had no strong rules about gambling. They had a WS fixed, because of a weak stance. So they drew a firm hard line, to keep the behavior from even being started, to try to avoid the temptors and thus temptations of games being fixed.

I think it was smart to do. But either way, it was their game, their choice, they have the right to determine what is best for the game. They set 2 rules, one worse than the other. The strictest - dont even think about betting on baseball. Pete knew it, he made a choice, he earned his reward IMO.

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 21:25

CLV - your AOL analogy doesnt hold up, because if an AOL prez buys or sells stock in AOL, he has restrictions on how much he can sell, and he has to tell the world what he is doing. I dont see where Pete ever said "today I am betting on the Reds to win, but tomorrow I am not betting." And if he had disclosed that, wouldnt you view the various games differently? I would.

As to your statement that there are other behaviors that also are bad for baseball, I dont disagree. Maybe baseball needs more than wrist slaps for cork, and for steroids, and the like. But so far they have limited their worst punishment to what they feel will endanger the integrity of "legit competition" - and though they might need MORE rules eventually, you cannot get past the fact that Pete Rose knew if he bet on baseball, the penalty was LIFETIME EXPULSION from the game - and he knew well the example of Shoeless Joe which has long been burned into the fabric of all fans.

Maybe our kids will grow up to know about the legends of BOTH Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose, TWO men "banned forever from baseball's HOF in spite of great on-the-field deeds."

Perm Dude
ID: 141046261
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 23:07

Just read this Fay Vincent quote in my local paper:

Selig's immediate predecessor, Fay Vincent, read the excerpts and was outraged, concluding that Rose did not deserve reinstatement.

"There's no sense of regret, no sense of shame, no sense of the damage he did to baseball," Vincent said. "I guess I'm really disgusted. I think the whole thing is a sordid, miserable story. It's sort of like turning over a stone — you see a lot of maggots, and it's not very pretty."

Heh heh. Well put.

Of course, there are those who say the Hall is full of maggots, and we don't discriminate against them, so why not a maggot who could hit (despite, of course, only being able to get the record because he was manager of the team)...but I digress.

pd

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 23:38

What's your point PD??? Why should I give any more weight to what Fay Vincent says than what I give to what clv, PD, F Gump, Myboyjack, Species, or anyone else who chooses to comment on their opinion? Do you honestly think you wouldn't find the same number of maggots (if not more) under the stone if you decided to look at Vincent's (or the majority of MLB owners) financial records?

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 23:50

F Gump - per # 67, I'm sorry, but you're wrong - the only thing that AOL president or executive is required to disclose is what they're choosing to do with the shares they're provided as a benefit from the company, not what they personally choose to do with the rest of their investments. That being said, I still stand by my earlier question - if he chooses to concentrate the rest of his 401k elsewhere, is he making a possibly informed financial decision or is he "inadvertently" tipping off financial advisors that there's an oncoming downturn in the stock?

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 23:56

The simple fact-of-the-matter is this: if you have lived long enough to form an opinion and be able to express it through language (whether spoken or written), chances are pretty good that you have committed just as many or as awful mistakes as those you're discussing, so be extremely careful of those you choose to make enemies - they're quite likely to be the ones serving as your jurors !!!

Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 23:58

I give more weight to what Faye Vincent says because he was there! He was the #2 baseball man behind Giamatti during the investigation and findings. And of course he was the Commish after Giamatti's death. He was in the room when discussions with Rose occurred!

Makes him pretty credible in my eyes.

One thing though -- I think it's faulty for Vincent (or anyone else) to judge Rose's overall sentiments within the book until the entire book is out, not just excerpts.

When the book is out and the entire tone of the book can be taken into account, just for the (blank) of it I'm going to write Selig and call upon him to leave the ban in place forever! I truly believe Rose is going to dig his own grave with the shameless self-promotion I expect to find in the book, so it ought to be easy! ;-)

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 00:12

I just think you're making as big a leap as I am Species...you say Vincent was there, I say Rose was there - alot of what I'm doing is playing devil's advocate, but I still haven't heard the first person give me ANY reason why I should side with Vincent or Selig instead of Rose...every man walking this planet is someone whose character could be understandably questioned, explain to me the reason I should respect Vincent or Selig's words anymore than Rose's...does anyone honestly think these men who were appointed to look out for the ethics of the game of baseball got to the point where they could actually be nominated to such a position without doing something (and in many cases terribly) wrong to envision such a position?

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 00:16

C, yes, they were both there, and one has been lying about it for years, both to the fans (presumably including you) and MLB officials.

I really have to question why you hold Rose's testimony up as high as Vincent's, when Rose's an admitted liar about this very topic. Sorry, but your argument that basically "everyone has maggots" carries no weight on this topic. You're attempting to simply water everything down to some relativistic status where truth doesn't matter. We're not buying.

pd

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 00:20

Vincent made a decision years ago that is quite likely to be overturned if for no other reason than the overwhelming public opinion that it should be overturned. You really think he has any less at stake at this point than Rose? There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Rose will be enshrined, simply a question of whether he's enshrined while he's still alive. You expect me to put more weight in what a man who wants to be remembered as the Kennesaw Mountain Landis of the modern era says? Sorry, I'll respectfully disagree with him because I think he's probably more concerned over the perception of his image than that of Rose or baseball.

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 00:29

I respectfully resign my opinions to your holiness PD. I would love for you to find one statement where I have ever said Rose didn't lie. My point is that a huge part of the problem with discussions on this and many other topics within our society is that many feel they have the higher ethical ground when if you dig a little they are no better than the rest of us. Honestly, this is the presiding opinion from most of the visitors that frequent the TSN message boards during the season. I spent a large amount of time defending the rotoguru members' right to express their opinions this past summer - it's just a shame that I find that if you voice an opinion different than the presiding opinion here that you're the idiot. I apologize for treading on such sacred ground, and hope that those of you who continue to be beyond reproach in your lives keep making the right decisions for those of us who don't qualify.

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 00:39

Really, I think you are taking this far too personally. Where did I call you an "idiot?" You praise the value of differing opinion, then passive-aggressive in action.

I just don't buy the relativistic argument: I didn't say that you don't think Rose never lied. I said that you see no difference between a lying Rose and Vincent.

pd

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 00:51

CLV - You said " I just think you're making as big a leap as I am Species...I still haven't heard the first person give me ANY reason why I should side with Vincent or Selig instead of Rose"

When it comes to CREDIBILITY, one person has lied through the years. And that same person is contradicted by ALL the evidence. That liar is Rose.

On the other side are those who havent lied.

When there is a conflict as to "what happened" - then you are FOOLISH to believe Rose.

If you are at all open-minded on this issue, let me give you one more item to ponder: there are sportswriters who are now being cited on an issue that didnt really matter one way or the other before. There are several VERY REPUTABLE major baseball writers who say with certainty that they know Rose bet ON BASEBALL while he was a PLAYER.

I am curious: if you accept that as fact - would THAT change your opinion in any way?

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 01:00

I'm taking this too personally...

"both to the fans (presumably including you)"

"You're attempting to simply water everything down to some relativistic status where truth doesn't matter."

"We're not buying."

As I questioned before - exactly who annointed the donors, sustainers, etc. of this board the people to make these types of judgements? Speak for yourself PD, not others - let them talk. None of this matters...I'll return to the discussions on the TSN boards - really funny how they feel more like spirited discussions than this. Really surprised that while I defended many from here on those boards that the situation is no better with the discussions here...honestly thought that opinions here were sacred, not who was spouting them.

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 01:05

OK then.

When you come back, bring a thicker skin if you want to express opinions. Really. And don't take a rejection of your argument as a rejection of you personally. We were always quite clear that we rejected the arguments you were making and no more.

pd

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 01:11

As for your last statement F Gump, when have I ever disputed that the man bet on baseball? I'm sorry guys, but what I find here is little more than marginally better than what's discussed on the TSN boards...you're asking me to have an "open mind"...read all the statements before you decide what my opinion if you're not going to ask me...for the final clarification:

YES I do think the man bet on baseball - obviously the evidence is there.

I think he bet on the Reds - although the evidence everyone so loves to cite states he never bet on them to lose.

I think his suspension from the game at the time he received it was absoloutely deserved.

I THINK HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON THE FIELD DESERVE A PLACE IN THE HOF.

I support MLB's decision one way or the other whether to allow him back into the game today as long as he's allowed his rightful place on the BALLOT. If those of you with HOF votes decided he's unworthy, so be it, but I will believe until the day that I die that that's a decision for the voters, not Vincent and Selig.

I hope the day comes that your minds are as open as you're asking me to make mine.

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 05:26

CLV - You said "As for your last statement F Gump, when have I ever disputed that the man bet on baseball? " and "read all the statements before you decide what my opinion if you're not going to ask me" (My last statement was that there are now reports being aired that there was betting ON BASEBALL while he was a PLAYER.)

Apparently you arent even following your own arguments. (Or else you are perhaps choosing to change them when someone gives you a reply that would confound them - I dunno.)

Let me review, so that you will see I indeed have followed your views. My question did not relate to the issue of whether he bet on baseball, which obviously you accept. Nor even on whether he bet on his own team one way or the other, which at first you firmly claimed to be unproven (post 42 - "Everyone keeps touting this 'proof' that what he did was so wrong, that he bet against/on his team, etc. I for one have never seen that concrete evidence, and yes, if it was presented I would have to restructure my thinking") and later retracted and said that you accepted he bet on his own team to win, but not to lose.

Instead, here is what my question pertains to:

Post 34 - you made the distinction that "my understanding is that the ban is in place for what he did while a MANAGER" ...

...and my question arises from this distinction that you were choosing to make, on what Pete did while a player, as separate from what he did while a manager. Thus with this added info (ie, that there is now testimony that the betting was part of his PLAYER role), that would make the betting part of his deeds as a PLAYER.

So my question is - if "betting on baseball" is indeed part of what he did while a PLAYER, does that change your view on his place in the HOF?

beastiemiked
Sustainer
ID: 3531815
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 09:31

Rule 21(d)

(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.

HeelBacker
ID: 541142817
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 09:49

From an on-field performance perspective, Pete Rose was one of the best baseball players I have ever seen -- significantly better IMHO than some players who are enshrined in Cooperstown. BUT, according to the rules he was appropriately banned from baseball for life.

Therefore, I offer this solution: Elect Pete Rose to the Hall of Fame ... posthumously.

Stuck in the Sixties
Dude
ID: 274132811
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 10:33

Fay Vincent's info came from the Dowd report, maybe amplified by Dowd (SP?) himself. So how Fay can say things that Dowd never did beats me.

However, I believe Pete belongs in the HOF because of the player he was. That's what the HOF is supposed to honor. My word, if we use moral judgments, what do we do about Ty Cobb, among others?

Why cannot the HOF simply honor on-field contributions?

Of course, once Rose is in, I'd imagine the Shoeless Joe advocates will be waiting in line -- and maybe that's as it should be.

IS OJ still in Canton?

Don

Tree
ID: 22015619
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 12:08

there was an interesting article in USA Today this morning.

apparently, players not only used to bet all the time, their bets were reported in newspapers. and there's plenty of fact to show that at least two current Hall of Famers bet on games while players...

'Fear' of gambling goes way back in baseball

Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 12:17

Gammons commented how his vote has changed from yes to no. Further, he opined that it is possible that Selig will put him on a 2-year probationary period, thus shifting the ability to be elected to the Hall of Fame to the Veteran's Committee, which reportedly is AGAINST Rose's election to the Hall.

You know, being the sadist that I am, that might be quite a way for Rose to live out his life....being shunned from enshrinement by those most capable of 'judging' him - the living Hall of Famers themselves. My worry is that as the older guys die off that Rose's generation of HoF'ers would get soft and elect his ass before he dies.

Ref
ID: 27016179
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 12:59

Tree, those cases came before the gambling rule was instituted. Still, point made.

Stamati
ID: 42012716
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 17:12

This entire Pete Rose situation is a shame and a disgrace...an embarrasment to baseball, to the world of sports, and especially to the fans. For 15 years Pete Rose had been telling us he did not bet on the game, and for 15 years he believed him. Why? Is it cause we were suckers? No, because we didn't want to believe this was Rose we were talking about. But it's true, he lied to us, and the world, and we must face it now; Rose played us. Am I furious? Of coarse, and I know I'm not the only person. I took what he said, and used it against baseball. Unfortunately, now that he lied, we can only use use it against him. It's a shame, and as a fan, I'm pissed.

I don't know if many people know this, but as one walks right into a clubhouse, there is a sign, of Rule 21...it basically says betting on baseball is a sin, and anyone doing it will be punished (as in a ban). In his 24 season career, and in his 3562 games played, Rose passed that sign a lot of times, but apparently he must've disregarded it. Well, he bet on baseball, it's the truth, and now people are changing their opinions about him.

As angry and manipulated as everyone may feel though, his accomplishments cannot go unnoticed. A career .303 hitter, Rose holds the All-time hits record with 4256 hits, but this is all stuff you guys are reading now in SI, ESPN, ETC. You know what, Rose should be allowed into the HOF for his contributions to the game as a player. What, All-time hit's record isn't enough? I'd like to see someone do that, then do something stupid, and when they don't get credit for the hits record, they'll know how it feels. He says he didn't bet against his team as a manager, "Do i believe him?" I don't know...for 15 years he's been telling us a lie. Then again, he was a perenial All-Star for 17 seasons...17 out of 24...that's pretty good. And when you can be put in the same class as Ty Cobb, George Brett, Robin Yount, Lou Brock, Paul Wagner and Tris Speaker, tha is not only phenomenal, but it's an honor. Stat wise, Rose is in the HOF, because if Paul Molitor can get in, who DH'd mos of his career (and i'm happy he's in) than Rose is definently in.

Okay, but once again the question is raised...If he knew it was wrong, why did he do it? I'm not skitzophrenic (i don't even know how to spell it), but I don't know. I don't think anyone does, but Rose himself. Do I particularly like Rose right now? Of coarse not, no one should...he lied to us and took advantage of us as fans. Do I think he regrets it? Of coarse he does. Maybe we shouldn't reinstate him, but a Hall of Fame bid should be instore for him. The HOF, where MLB's best ever, are enshrined forever, and worshippedby fans for their accomplishments and contributions to the game.

My point is you can hate the guy(as i loathe him a bit for lying to us right now), but you can't take away what he's accomplished. Someone may say "well, the magnitude of what he's done has a greater impact than that of his career." If anyone believes that, they should be banned from baseball. You can say negative things about a guy like Pete Rose (i know i have and i'd post it, but i respect this forum...it's sacred) but you can't say the negative, without the positive. In a few years, I'm not telling my kids "Pete Rose was the guy who bet on baseball." I'm going to tell them "Pete Rose is the All-Time hit's leader in MLB baseball and one of the best players ever. However, he did something bad; he bet on a game, which is a sin. I won't tell you kids what to think of him, but measure out the pros and cons, and his contributions. Then, when you've reached an opinion, I'd like to hear it."

The sad part is Rose's triumphant career will forever be shadowed, will always havethat asterik, for the betting. It'd be like OJ Simpson, who isn't remebered as a great baseball player, but rather as the guy who was on trial. Or like Bill Buckner; We won't remember Bill as that good fielder and player; Intead, he'll be the guy that let the ball trickle through the 5-hole in the 86' world series.

This is what we have to say to our future generations; it's quite sad.

(please don't respond with a 2 line post, telling me I'm wrong...i'm entitled to my opinion, as is everyone here...instead, prove us and the baseball world what you think and why it's correct...i've done my part...)

Stamati
ID: 42012716
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 17:16

oj SIMPSON AS RUNNING BACK..MY MISTAKE

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 20:43

STAMATI - Good post. Lots of great points. I have a few points in reply, from a different angle than yours.

As you asked, this is not a 2-line post, and I think the arguments provide plenty of "proof" as you wanted - but whether you choose to accept them is up to you.

(1) The Hall of Fame is about Baseball not about individuals. Baseball history, baseball feats, baseball teams, baseball's honored legends.

Until you go to the HOF, it is easy to get the sense that it is only about a list of names, and a once a year vote as to which names to add. That is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy wrong. If you havent been to the HOF, you need to go.

When you are there, you will see that Pete is already getting his just due for all of his feats - his records are there, and duly noted. His name indeed appears on top of the list of all-time hits leaders, etc. He has jerseys, bats, etc - to commemorate his accomplishments. So his accomplishments are feted like they should be. No one has erased his name or anything from the deeds he did, or the teams he played on. He is given 100% credit.

But Pete himself is NOT given a place of "honor" as an individual, a place which is reserved for a special few. And I think by the dishonor he gave to himself and the game, he forfeited his right to be honored as a PERSON - even though his accomplishments are still there, and his name.

(2) I am surprised you were fooled by Rose's lies after he was expelled - but i was surprised that ANYONE ever believed his outrageous indignant BS, even though many seemed to.

His willingness to accept a lifetime ban was a tacit acknowledgement that he had done the deed.

The material evidence also has always been clear and compelling, leaving no doubt if you look at it with an open mind.

His assertion that the people in baseball trumped up the charges leading to his expulsion (an expulsion which hurt the game) never had a ring of truth, just typical "shift the blame" style that some use when caught.

(3) As to "why" he did it, I dont think it is important. Only Pete knows, and whatever he says is unreliable at best.

What we do know is this. There is indeed a rule, and he knew it well. Not only is the rule printed on a 4 ft tall sign (all by itself) as you enter every clubhouse, they also have a talk every year to all the players, to reinforce the assurance that EVERYONE knows the rule, and the consequences for violating it.

The rule: bet on baseball, you get suspended for a year. Bet on a game you are a part of, and get banned for life. Very simple and clear.

Now if you are going to have a rule, you have to enforce it when someone breaks it, or you no longer have a rule.

Pete broke it. He knew what he was doing. He just figured he wouldnt get caught. He got caught. Now (even though he doesnt like it) the rule is being enforced, just like baseball said over and over and over. Sounds fair to me.

If baseball lets him back in, they really dont have the rule anymore, do they?

(4) If you are going to put Pete in the HOF, then you will have to go back and first think about Shoeless Joe. Just like Pete, Joe played hard every game. His records were far better than Pete's as a player. Yes Pete has the all-time hits record, and he played hard. But Joe was a far better player - he just didnt get to finish his career in baseball because he got banned earlier in his career than Pete did. Joe had a sterling career record, by mnay accounts was the best player of his time, and if he retired at that point without the expulsion he would easily have been a Hall-of-Famer without question.

Joe was banned and never reinstated. It was uncertain if he even did the crime, and the rules and penalties were vague in those days. If you research the times, you will see that there were many suspicions of fixed games over and over in that era.

For Joe, the penalty for something he may not have even done has been over 80 years. He is dead and gone.

If you are now going back and allowing some sort of reconsideration for banned players re the HOF, you have to include ALL (not just Pete).

How would you do it fairly? Since the ban is "lifetime" do you perhaps open up the possibility, within the rule itself, that Joe now and then Pete later could be reconsidered after they die? Or perhaps you make the player only eligible if voted in by the Veterans Committe (ex-players who knew the game, and also its rules, and thus were in the same boat as Pete)?

Whatever you do, if you opt to do something for Pete, I think you MUST make it about more than Pete. You have to make a revision in the rules. Giving him an exception because "he was a very good player" or "because lots of fans like him" violates the spirit of fairness in rules. If you change the rule somehow, you have to make the change apply to all.

My personal opinion: Pete should never be considered for the HOF until and unless Shoeless Joe is first given a chance to be reconsidered too. I have no compelling argument to prove that opinion, but that to me seems has more of a sense of "fairness"

(5) Pete is ineligible to the HOF because he is banned from baseball. Unless the ban is lifted, he will remain ineligible. But if you lift the ban from baseball, he can be a manager again.

I have heard no one say that they think baseball should allow Pete to be a manager again. But if you lift Pete's expulsion from baseball, then by definition he is back in the game and he can manage if someone will hire him. If you remove the ban, you have to allow him to be hired if a team wishes to do so - there would be lawsuits galore otherwise. And because he is such an icon in Cincy, all reports say the Reds have made it clear that Pete will manage their team if he again is eligible.

I think the ban MUST stay in place, for that reason as well.

Stamati
ID: 42012716
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 21:41

F GUMP,

A very good response indeed; one of the better ones I've received. I just have a few more things to say. Please note I'm not defending Rose; what he did was wrong, it's clear. Reason I fell for it? I'm 15 years old, and a baseball player in high school myself, so i get influnced by the players. Here's a few points i need to make though.

1.) Letting Rose into the HOF is not necessarily a complete change of rules; not an amendment. I think Rose's #'s definently get him into the HOF, as do Joes. However, that's all Rose should get into the HOF for. I think a rule must be changed somewhere, were if the ban is lifted, it doesn't mean you cannot be on probation and not manage a team. In fact, Rose should be banned from all MLB ballparks; but his career should not go unnoticed. His name may stand atop lists and records, and he may have jerseys, but he would give it all back for a shot at the HOF.

2.) Betting is a serious crime in baseball; agree. But that isn't to say everyone in HOF is perfect. If anything it's the opposite. I mean if we base entrance in the HOF entirely on character, 10% of the guys would be in right now. Babe Ruth, Micky Mantle, played on a hangover everynight. Did anyone say anything? Was it considered when they were voted into the HOF? Ty Cobb, one of the best hitters, would spike his cleats before everygame. Why? To take out the second baseman of coarse. Okay, drinking and playing baseball, and the whole Cobb cleats things don't measure up to the betting; of course not. But it goes to tell you that there's more things than people know in that Hall of Fame, a lot of which does not get public. In this case, Rose is not only unlucky but stupid.

3.) According to the HOF rules, players are to be judged by accomplishments, personal records, contributions to the team, sportsmanship and character. The only thing that fails to qualify Rose is the character. If he said 15 years ago, "yeah, i did it," none of this would have transpired. However he didn't, and that is a dark spot on his career. However, accomplishments and personal records? 17 All Star games, All time hits record. team contributions? 2 World Series Titles and like 6 NLCS. Sportsmanship? Well with the exception of a few minor incidents, he's fine. I have a question...Will David Wells makes the HOF? Accomplished career, good record, what else do you need? Will the fact that he was half drunk and punched a midget in a nightbar have any effect of him getting into the HOF? NO!

4.) Truth is Pete Filled up ballparks, he was a fan favorite. Maybe this is not enough just cause to let him back, but these are guys playing a kid's game for a lot of money! Rose did not make as much as they do now. but these are just guys, you can''t hold them to insane standards. He had een told over and over, yes; a kick in the butt for Rose.

AND IN CLOSING I SAY...MICHAEL JORDAN BET ON SPORTS DIDN'T HE? DID ANYONE SAY ANYTHING? NO! WILL HE GET INTO THE NBA HALL OF FAME? OF COARSE, IT'S MJ. sO WHY CAN'T THE MJ OF HIS TIME MAKE IT? WHY? GIVE HIM HIS HOF SHOT AND THAT'S IT; DONT EVEN LET HIM BE A BALL BOY SIMPLE AS THAT.

(please don't respond with a 2 line post, telling me I'm wrong...i'm entitled to my opinion, as is everyone here...instead, prove us and the baseball world what you think and why it's correct...i've done my part...)

eddiecuban
ID: 21045720
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 21:47

STAMATI.. I AGREE! LETS BE REALISTS BASEBALL IS A BUSINESS AND IN HIS DAY HE MADE THE LEAGUE VERY VERY RICH WHILE GETTING PAID COMPARATIVE PEANUTS...A BRONZE PLAQUE IS VERY LITTLE TO PAY FOR HIS YEARS AS A BASEBALLS INDENTURED SERVANT

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 22:06

Indentured? The man made millions, and continues to do well. He was not indentured.

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 22:37

I'm so sick of the argument that "there are already a bunch of bad character guys in the Hall, so let's add one more."

First off, that simply says that we, as a society, have not improved, nor do we wish to improve. Our case for allowing a guy into the Hall of Fame essentially becomes that he's no worse, as far as character goes, to others in the Hall, so let it be. Yeah, well we once had slave-owners for president. Does that mean we should support someone who is in favor of slavery who runs for president in this day and age? Have we not grown at all as a society? Do we have no better sense of right or wrong than we did 25, 50, or even 75 years ago?

Secondly, if one cannot understand how huge of a crime against the integrity of the game betting is, then you have simply failed to understand baseball as a sport. To say that betting was okay as long as he didn't do it AGAINST his own team is downright ridiculous. Betting FOR one's own team is just as bad. Is it that difficult to see a manager who has bet for his team overusing pitchers, pinch-hitters, or even regular batters? Is it that difficult to see a manager saving players for days that he does bet on his team? If it is, then not only are you calling Pete Rose a great baseball player, you're also calling him functionally retarded. Let's be real, his current move is extremely calculated. A book deal just happens to coincide with him having just 2 more years of HoF eligibility? And his new admissions of guilt just happen to coincide with his new book that say the same thing? Gee, no book sale numbers in mind here, are there? No HoF sympathy in mind here, is there? It's all been carefully calculated, you can bet on it (pun intended).

Third, comparing Pete Rose to Michael Jordan just doesn't make sense. Let the NBA do what they want, but just because they do something doesn't mean baseball needs to follow suit. Again, how far have we come as a society when we simply say, "Well, THEY'RE doing it, so why not baseball?" What about having some standards? What about saying, no, betting is not allowed in baseball under any circumstances? What about standing up for that and having the backbone that Fay Vincent has such that to this day he still maintains his resolve on the matter? What about saying, you, as a player, did something that you KNEW would receive a lifetime ban and we're going to stick to that punishment?

Lastly, the rules are simple. You gamble on baseball, you receive a lifetime ban. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Everybody knows it, including people who don't even play the game. Why are there people who are so ready to allow Rose into the HoF now that he has admitted he gambled on baseball? Does that change the situation? Didn't we all already know that? Big whoop-de-doo that he admitted it. It makes what he did absolutely no less wrong and should be rewarded with a, "thank you for not lying anymore since we all already knew the truth," instead of, "welcome to the Hall of Fame."

Pete Rose has officially pulled the wool over people's eyes. He has people walking around talking about how persecuted he is and how all he did was make a mistake. And now that he admits it, he feels he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Well, WRONG! Wake up people. We knew all along that he bet on baseball. All he's doing now is saying it to sell books. And the more books he sells, the more people are going to feel sorry for his sorry behind instead of simply saying, "Pete Rose, you knowingly broke one of the most sacred rules in baseball and you must live with that choice with your lifetime ban." How about we grow a backbone? How about we actually have some standards for the Hall of Fame if we can't have them on the field of play? How about we stop living in the past with Ruth and Mantle and Cobb and wake up to today and make decisions based on what we feel is right and wrong today? Must we continue to live based on the choices of people so many years ago? Can we not make choices for ourselves and say that gambling is wrong and deserving of a lifetime ban?

If we can't, we're no better than those characters that we complain about, for we have given in to them and accepted that what they did is a standard for all players to come. A low standard that will eventually continue to get even lower. For if we allow a man who gambled on the game of baseball into the Hall of Fame, why should we not later allow any sort of character that shows up on a ballot? The Hall will become void of anything but stats-driven choices and will cease to be a Hall of Fame, but rather a Hall of Extroidinary Stats. Why else would we place a person who directly assaulted the integrity of the game on a pedestal in the game's most hallowed grounds?

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Jan 07, 2004, 22:57

Nice. We usually are on opposite sides of these kinds of discussions, KKB. It's cool to be on the same team.

pd

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 01:10

STAMATI - Being 15, you write well and do a great job of expressing your points. Well done.

Re 1 - You make a well stated proposal, a decent compromise - where eligibility for the HOF is not tied to being banned.

If you go this route, there are a couple of issues to consider and resolve.

The first is, it is kinda hard to say "we will give this person the ultimate honor in our sport, yet we want him far away from it." When you BAN someone entirely, and tell them and the world "you are so bad that you are not allowed anywhere near us" - then it is hard to say at the same time " and also let's put you on our highest pedestal of honor." You could avoid this conflict if you only allow DECEASED players to be reinstated - that way if they then get in the HOF you dont have to explain why they are banned from baseball at the same time.

The second is, when you start making an exception, you are also kinda giving a slap in the face to the other players that felt they had to honor baseball's rule, and did follow it like asked. That is why I would say, if you open up the HOF for Pete now, maybe the ONLY route for him to be admitted should be via the Veterans Committee. That committee consists of ex-players, the HOF members. They had to keep the rules, but also know how good Pete played, so they can balance and value both. They have a vested interest in the game of baseball itself. They would be a great group to decide his fate (and that of Shoeless Joe) if you amend the rules in that manner, it would seem. If anyone is going to be the one to say "he is okay to be allowed back into this game" it should be those who represent the best of baseball, IMO.

Re 2 and 3 - These arguments I will lump together, and I hear these often but I think when either of them is used, the person making them misses the basic idea of what is so "EXTRA WRONG" (or "UNFORGIVABLY wrong") with what Pete did.

You said there are other people who have done other kinds of undesirable things, who are in the HOF. (However, "Pete is a bad person" is not what disqualifies him.)

You said "If he said 15 years ago, "yeah, i did it," none of this would have transpired". (However, it isnt his his lying that is the big problem. It isnt the lack of confession.)

You argued that his baseball deeds are so good that you can ignore the rest - and to a point that can be a true. (However, there is one excpetion, and this is it - and for a big reason.)

Let me say that there are people in the HOF who may have done bad things. (But note this -I strongly reject your assertion that 90% of the ones in there are really bad people. That is unfair to say or think. There are SOME - but don't overstate the facts. The old saw that "everyone is doing it, so it's okay" is an exaggeration and it smears a ton of people who do choose to live their life by the rules.)

But what Rose did was on a very different level. You can have liars and bad people (who are very good players) in baseball, but there is one type of activity that endangers the very game's existence and that thus is different than all the rest in disqualifying a person from playing.

Here is the one thing that is at the root of the game, and it is why baseball has made such a harsh rule. Here is what baseball is about: it is about HONEST COMPETITION. That is what fans pay to see.

Now you can have all the records in the world, but if it is all rigged, soon everyone loses interest. It would become like WWE or something.

Going way back in baseball history, at one time, players would bet on games openly, and big time gamblers were a part of what was going on. Rumors were everywhere that some games were fixed, here and there. As a result, fans began to lose interest. Eventually the WS itself was fixed.

Baseball needed a way to ensure the public that they were offering HONEST COMPETITION. You can replace the players, cause any player can set records if they are the best player at the time they play. But you have to ensure to the fans that everything that is earned comes with opponents trying their best.

So baseball took the steps to rid the sport of gamblers. And gambling. Made it a "death penalty" so to speak, if you ever even bet on your own team. They didnt want to allow there to be ANY question of integrity. And the result was that public confidence returned, and prospered.

So what Pete violated was the BASIC rule that exists in baseball, that kept it alive. Is it needed now like it was then? I dont know - but if you are in charge of baseball, with that experience, do you take a chance? Or do you just make sure the rule is honored?

So baseball made a strong rule - but then made sure every player knew it. Over emphasized how important it is, just to be sure. With all that baseball has done to make sure that a player doesnt cross this line, it is hard to then ask them to let Pete off the hook with a lighter sentence than he earned.

Is that an "insane standard" - to demand that if you play their game, you stay away from gambling on it? In light of the history, I think it is very fair.

And I think Pete thought he was immune to the rules, and decided to do whatever he wished. So he made a choice - now he gets the results. Seems very fair.

Re 4 - the money is irrelevant. Pete was paid well for what he did. Even now, he earns an incredible income just from having been a ballplayer 20 years ago. Baseball doesnt "owe" him a thing.

Re one more - you brought up Jordan. Thats a different sport with a different history and different rules. You cant tell baseball to follow the NBA style - what if baseball has the right approach, and one day the NBA gets screwed by NOT having a rule? If you will suffer the consequences as a business, you have to set your own rules that you think are needed rather than use someone else's.

Also re Jordan, something that I cant prove but that I believe - I think Jordan was secretly suspended from the NBA for gambling and gambling problem fears, when he went to baseball. There was a big furor about his gambling - then he out of nowhere decides to play another sport? I think in private they said "you are out for a year" and he found another activity to make it look like he was voluntarily retiring. And then when he came back, the whole issue had gone away. Just my opinion.

holt
ID: 105555
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 08:39

I'm a huge baseball fan - just old enough to have gotten to watch Pete Rose play once when I was a kid - but I've never found the Rose issue very interesting. I don't need the HoF to tell me who was great, and I don't feel that the outcome of this will affect future gambling by players and coaches(a non-issue). This debate just comes down to an argument between strict principles and a more liberal forgiveness. I didn't have the patience to read much of this thread, but I suppose that's what it comes down too. And one more thing - I'm too tired to have a point - just ramblin'. :)

Revvingparson
Sustainer
ID: 59856912
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 09:08

As Baretta used to say; "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Pete knew the rules and now he's doing the time.

100

holt
ID: 105555
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 09:22

How bout a Bueller quote - sorta - just change the Maitre D' to Rose...

Maitre D': I appreciate your understanding.
Ferris: Don't think twice. It's understanding that makes it possible for people like us to tolerate a person like yourself.
Maitre D': Thank you.
Ferris: Don't mention it.

101

ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 566152116
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 11:58

Something I find funny about this entire Pete Rose fiasco...a segment of baseball has been calling for Pete's admission of guilt for years basically saying once he admits it they will begin to forgive him. Another segment (probably larger) has stood behind Pete choosing to believe that he never gambled and believing Pete for the past 14 years that he was telling the truth and never gambled.

Now that Pete has admitted lieing the past 14 years and admitted he did gamble a portion of that first segment is willing to forgive him but the problem is he has created an entire new group of detractors...the people who have stood behind Pete and supported him that he never gambled are now against him because they feel betrayed that he has lied all of these years. Like the two sides switched sides. In the end Pete probably now has more detractors. His popularity polls have took a hit down.

I probably fall more into camp 1, I always knew he gambled and if he actually admitted it and felt sorry about it I might become a backer but problem is I think this admission is all about money and personal gain...I am still solidly on the side of keeping him banned.

102

Ref
ID: 27016179
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 12:50

I knew he was lying as well. I think he will gain more than lose by his admission. I also think his name will be in the news awhile.

103

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 17:03

KKB-

The one thing that I don't agree with is the part that where since we have progressed, then we should not allow ANY MORE jerks into the Hall. The problem with that and your presidential analogy is that guys like Cobb are STILL in the HOF. If you want to take them out that is one thing, but they are still being honored. A more accurate analogy would have been if a slave owner was up for a Supreme Court seat, and there was currently a slave owner on the Court, and we took a "from now on" approach to it.

I am not saying I am supporting Rose being an active part of baseball. I would like to see him get in to the Hall only so everything will just stop. He is being slowly made into a hero when he is a peice of crap. Only baseball could make a martyr out of someone like him.

104

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 17:15

Great One: Rose shouldn't be in the hall, not because he's a jerk like Cobb, but because he gambled.

Comparisons with Cobb (and even Shoeless Joe Jackson, who might not have even been guilty of anything) are beside the point, IMO. Rose did the crime, now he's got to do the time. Frankly, he never should have been given a timetable for his possible re-instatement as the deal for him to keep silent. Once it was clear what he did, he should have had the door slammed permanently.

pd

106

Da Bomb
ID: 339511119
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 17:36

Did anyone see that Pete Rose Trial and Verdict on
ESPN Classic. I don't really know when it took
place. It wasn't a real trial, more like a mock
one, but it did have Jesse Cochrain as "Rose's"
Defense lawyer. The Jury was polled at the end
and 7 out of 12 voted that Rose should be in the
hall.

Now, for my stand on this issue.

It is known that Rose has the stats to be in the
HOF. It is also known that Rose broke the
Cardinal Rule of Baseball--betting. Although
betting on one's team is 10X worse than not,
betting is still more than a major crime in the
baseball world.

Now we must ask ourselves this question. Does
Rose's stats overrule the fact that he be broke
this rule, which he knew very well he was
breaking? IMHO, No. If let's say,
hypothetically, Roberto Alomar were to retire
today, became a manager, and was later found that
he had bet on baseball and received a lifetime
ban. 20 years passes and Alomar's past misdoings
resurface in the news. Would we even be
discussing the issue if an almost marginal HOF
like this should be reinstated? Of coarse not.
So why should Rose receive better treatment
just because he had a better career? This concept
seems unfair.

107

Stamati
ID: 42012716
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 18:56

DA BOMB,

I diagree. Pete Rose first of all, clearly had the better career, and will have the better career than Almoar. However, your argument about ...."Does Rose's stats overrule the fact that he be broke this rule, which he knew very well he was breaking".... is not even the tip of the ice berg. Its a lot more than stats my friend.

In his career, Rose filled up ball parks, sold out stadiums, was a fan favorite, and overall was good to public relations and promotion for the league. And look at the thanks a bunch of morons, and the sport of baseball, which he gave so much for, gives to him.

Eddycuban is right, an indentured servant is the perfect analogy, considering that back then he made the same amount of money Joe McEwing makes per year now (we're talking baseball wise for Rose, not commercials for Maaco). Rose was healthy for the game. Compare him to Big Mac, and Slammin' Sammy who when the strike occured in the 90's brought the fans back, made the fans love the game. Rose was that kind of player, with that kind of impact. People loved him, he loved the game, and in the process, the MLB profited and promoted their butts.

So there's a very bad incident, where he lied and got caught. Do i trust him now? Of coarse not; he betrayed baseball's ultimate rule; he shattered it. Mr Koala, you rambled on and on about how Rose shouldn't get in, because if he does society will have gotten a lot worse. Not true, because if we decide to clean house now, if we went to Cooperstown and got rid of all the players who had such incidents and dark spots in their characters and career, i can guarantee you 3/4ths of those plaques will be chucked into the street. Did anyone say about Ruth's influence to people when he played on a hangover, as did Mantle? Or how about Ty Cobb sharpening his cleats before everygame to take out the poor second baseman? When David Wells makes it to the HOF ballot (I think he will) will anyone think about the Manhattan brawl where he fought a midgit while intoxicated, and in the process got the crap and his teeth knocked out of him? Will anyone say anything about McGwire, who calims to have used a supplement? Caminiti, Canseco, i don't know if they'll get voted in, but will anyone consider that? Rose takes to much crap, and the media blows thing ou of proportion, as if everyone is perfect, and he's the only black sheep...not true.

I used the analogy of MJ as that; an analogy. I didn't use it to make a comparison between baseball and basketball, but rather to compare all athletes. MJ bet, but did we ever hear about it? Certainly people have, but not many. BOMBERMAN, had you heard about MJ? No, i know you didnt. And what happened? He's going into the HOF for NBA no questions asked. Someone, i can't find who jumped on me for saying i wanted the mlb to suit up with the NBA; that proposterous, because if we did, we'd have a legit salary cap rule!! Don't put words into my mouth people, I'm already chewing. But seriously, if the MJ betting problem can get squashed liek that, what's a small plaque in upstate New York? What, the world? i doubt it.

There should be a rule changed agree. But don't call it a ban, call it a "your not allowed in anything else but the HOF" rule. Ban Rose from all MLB ballparks, but don't take away his achievements; never do that, to anyone, ever. Shoeless Joe definently deserves in, but once again, it's those jealous, evil minded, bad spirited not only fans, but media members, that keep this crap circulating. BOMBERMAN, where you even around to see Rose play? It doesn't sound like it to me, and i'll admit, neither did I. But folks, you see the numbers, the numbers are what gets you in. And don't anyone get me started on character and stuff, b/c that's a a load of more crap; if Cobb gets in for character, Rose is waiting for him inside.

Excuse me if i've been offensive or vulgar, or feisty, but it's really how i feel. I'm not defending the jerk; he commited a crime. But his numbers are there, and he did his deeds for baseball. He sold out stadiums, brought the fans to the game; it's not a stat war vs. the crime, its much more than that. Rose did everything he could for the game. The bet was the one darkspot on his career. I'm not sayiong give him special treatment, I'm saying let him in cause his numbers speak for themselves, and so do his accomplishments and triumphs and help he gave to the MLB. Ban him from the parks, make sure he never manages again, but don't take that little plaque, that belongs to him, and his historic career.

(please don't respond with a 2 line post, telling me I'm wrong...i'm entitled to my opinion, as is everyone here...instead, prove us and the baseball world what you think and why it's correct...i've done my part...)

108

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 19:15

PD-

I hear what you're saying and I am really not passionate enough about the topic to care too much either way. I definitely understand your side of the argument and you're right.

I more wish they would put him in so he can stop being made into a sympathetic figure. The original deal he signed was obviously crap and that is why MLB is having a hard time saving face over the thing.

If I could envision an ideal situation it would be that he keeps his lifetime ban, but he is put into the Hall without a ceremony. Nothing done to honor him, but just stick his plaque in there and be done with it. It is clear that without doing that, this "Pete going to the Hall" thing will never go away. It has stayed news for fifteen years despite the fact that there has really been no actual development in the case aside from Rose running his mouth.

109

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 19:34

Great One, my presidential anology may not have been perfect, but it still illustrates my point. Just because there are racists in the Hall of Fame doesn't mean they need to accept a gambler. For one thing, being a racist was not punishable by a lifetime ban from baseball. For another thing, it was a completely different time period. As I said, have we not grown at all as a society? If so, then we should recognize gambling for the detriment it presents to the sport of baseball and ban it both from the game and the Hall of Fame. Personally, if facts were found to show that Ty Cobb bet on baseball, I would want him removed as well. I would be perfectly fine with that.

"I would like to see him get in to the Hall only so everything will just stop." So we should give the screaming kid the candy he wants? I think you have simply illustrated what I see as another problem with our society: we are willing to give in to those who kick and scream and draw attention to themselves just to keep them quiet. Why can't we simply let them continue to make fools of themselves and let them continue to look like the whiney babies they are and not give in to them? Why can't we hold our resolve and force them to be the ones to give up the fight? Personally, I don't see him being made into any kind of hero. I see him being a big crybaby. He's the kid at the checkout counter that screams at the top of his lungs until his mom buys him the bubblegum. And you know what? Once he gets his way one time, the next player that runs into these kinds of problems will do the same thing until MLB once again caves in. THAT is a far more dangerous precedent than anything else being discussed.

Stamati, "In his career, Rose filled up ball parks, sold out stadiums, was a fan favorite, and overall was good to public relations and promotion for the league." With all due respect, so what? While he was helping the league, he was also doing the most harm anybody could by betting on the very games being played. So what you see as him filling up ballparks and being a fan favorite, I see as smoke and mirrors as he secretly bet on games that were supposed to be legit. As F Gump alluded to in #97, he was, in his own way, turning the game into the WWE.

As for Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Wells, McGwire (whose supplements never broke any rules in baseball), etc., you're talking apples and oranges. I'm not saying those guys are saints. Far from it. However, that's a long way from gambling on baseball. Like I said, if you don't understand that, then you just don't fully grasp the situation. You don't fully grasp how much of an impact that sort of behavior can have on the game. You're talking lasting effects. If Ruth shows up with a hangover one game, it MAY (and I stress the word "may" because I honestly don't know how a hangover affected him) affect him for that one game. Rose's behavior likely affected MANY games, including games he didn't bet on as I outlined in my previous post. You find me a guy in the Hall who gambled on baseball and I'll agree with you that he should be tossed out. No questions asked. As for the others, I'm willing to forgive some minor sins as a baseball fan. However, gambling is no minor sin. And as for Canseco and Camaniti, I think they deserve consideration simply because they did not break any written rules, however if I had a vote, I probably would not vote for either one, even though Canseco was my favorite player when I was growing up.

"But seriously, if the MJ betting problem can get squashed liek that, what's a small plaque in upstate New York? What, the world? i doubt it."

I think I can see why I have such a vastly different take on the subject compared to you. If you consider a Hall of Fame induction to be "a small plaque in upstate New York," then I'm not sure we'll ever agree on the standards for HoF induction. To me, HoF induction transcends the plaque. I wouldn't visit the HoF to look at a bunch of "small plaques." It's the ultimate sign of respect and gratitude and is the holy grail of a ballplayer's career. Should we so easily give that to a man who broke one of the cardinal sins of the game and then lied about it and only admitted (partial) truth when his HoF eligibility was waning? I'm willing to bet that if there were a 5-year waiting period for any reinstatement to take affect that Rose would have come out with this book about 4-5 years ago. The timing is impeccable and he's playing all the soft-hearted fans like a violin.

"call it a 'your not allowed in anything else but the HOF' rule. Ban Rose from all MLB ballparks, but don't take away his achievements; never do that, to anyone, ever."

Again, I feel exactly the opposite. I think those that tarnish the game like Rose did with his gambling should be banned from the HoF because it's not just achievements that should put you there. You're right, they shouldn't take away his achievements, but they also shouldn't idolize him in the form of a HoF induction. I personally feel that HoF induction should be reserved for those players who not only had a great career, but also, as a person and a player, made the game better than it was when he entered it. Rose has done the exact opposite of that. He has cast into question so many things regarding his playing and managing career and has been such a blight to the game because of his gambling that he deserves no idolization. Recognize his achievements? Yes. Induct him into the Hall? No way.

"Rose did everything he could for the game." Sorry, but he fell way short on this one. While he was surely putting up huge numbers and drawing huge crowds, he was also placing himself above the game and its rules by gambling in secrecy. That's anything but doing everything he could for the game. If he had done everything he could, he would not have broken one of the most sacred rules of the game. Saying Rose did everything he could for the game is like saying a murderer (possibly the real world's equivalent of a gambler in baseball, IMHO) did everything he could to be a good person... well, except for that killing thing.

110

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 19:49

I was more refering to Cobb's battery of a black man, his wife and a handicap gentleman as being reasons not to honor him rather than just racism in general, but I think we understand each other.

I wasn't talking about appeasing the crying child. I was talking about appeasing the crying fans. They are the ones who have kept the Rose thing in the news and virtually every Rose poll I have seen has shown baseball fans in favor of letting him in.

"Why can't we hold our resolve and force them to be the ones to give up the fight?"

Because the resolve is perceived by many to be unfair. That is the heart of the issue. Like I said, I am not a Rose fan, but if the fans want him in, then it should be considered. Otherwise baseball can continue to show its resolve and keep playing to shrinking audiences. While other sports cater to its fans, baseball can rest on its virtues and live in its own pseudo-society where certain things are deemed evil (gambling) while others are tolerated and the fans are just told to accept it.

113

Da Bomb
ID: 339511119
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 21:13

Stamati - You're obviously a newcomer to this
site, and maybe you don't know the rules of this
great forum. You may want to make your way over
to the Forum Standards and read carefully over
what is written there. For you to say I never
heard of MJ and whoever else you said is just
plain immature, and this site doesn't need that
and the comments you made to KKB.

I'll just make this fairly brief -
I truly believe you don't understand the entire
Pete Rose situation, if really much at all. I
agree with KKB when he said betting to baseball is
like a murder to society. You're analogies of
Wells, Cobb, and others are not even close to what
Rose did. What they did wasn't great, but nothing
even remotely comparable to the things done by
Rose. Rose did all he could to tarnish America's
Pastime. Also, to say slander like Ruth got drunk
before each game is soemthing I would not tend to
agree with. But, for all there is, a player could
have a hangover for every game of their career,
and will not even come remotely close to what Rose
did. Maybe that will help with your understanding
of this issue.

114

Stamati
ID: 42012716
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 21:16

To the sportsfans and writers of this forum,

After reading my response, and having a chance to regain my composure, i have one thing to say...IM SORRY. Clearly I've only embarassed myself, myself, oh yea, and myself. I don't know, something triggered this negativity within me. I'm not usually angry or furious; must've been a phase.

I would also especially like to apologize to the Bomb, and Krazy Koala Bears; Da Bomb, my apologies if i offended you, and for insulting your quotations and "calling you out" as i did. I wasn't out to hurt nor put you down, rather i was trying to get my point across. My sincerest apologies...

Mr. Koala, you especailly deserve an apology. Sorry about the synonym (marsupial), and the insults, let alone the whole CAPS thing; i was in a stupid state. If you readwhat i wrote, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and clearly i took it away, and I'm sorry. It's like the thinker (can't remember his name) said..."I may not agree with what you have to say, but by god i will defend your right to say it."

Again I'm terribly sorry, I hope you all accept my apology, and can read my posts again. This wil never happen again, ever.

P.S. Please someone tell me how to delete the previous post(s) i made; i have no idea how to

117

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 22:41

STAMATI - You said re what Rose did "So there's a very bad incident, where he lied and got caught"

You said something similar much earlier in this thread, I answered in detail, and then here you summarize Pete's crime again in the same (completely erroneous) way.

When you say something like that, it leads me to believe you have a very vague and even wrong idea of what Rose did wrong.

Pete's crime had NOTHING to do with lying. And his crime was not a brief incident, that happened one time and then he tried to cover up. That isnt even close.

Pete bet on baseball games, including games that he participated in. And he did it for YEARS, over and over and over.

There is oral testimony that he did it regularly for years as a PLAYER. And then there is hard material evidence of YEARS of such activity as a manager. I have detailed for you WHY baseball has such a hard stance against doing such activity once. What you need to know is that he did it repeatedly and continuously and for years and years. He wasnt some sort of minor offender. He just decided that the rule wasnt important. Maybe he thought as you do - that since he was a popular player, he was immune from the rules.

The lying came after he was already caught, and convicted. So he is now stopping with the lying - but the crime itself is still there: years and years and years of flouting the rule that baseball thinks is CRUCIAL to its game. This is the rule that goes to the integrity and authenticity of the game.

Here is the rule again:
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.

No question - he did something that carries a lifetime ban, for doing once. He didnt do it just once - he did it repeatedly, regularly, knowingly. I dont see how there is any way to look the other way and say "forget it" just cause he wants to be honored in the HOF and to be back in baseball.

118

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 22:49

I have a silly question.

I'm sure it has been mentioned elsewhere, and if it has then I appologize, but is there a specific rule that joins a lifetime ban with the Hall of Fame itself or is it an unwritten thing?

119

Stamati
ID: 42012716
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 22:56

F GUMP,

Sorry, my intention isn't to say that the lies are the reason he is introuble. Rose is in trouble for betting, and i know he did it over and over and over. Then again, i am young, so you know, the lying was significant also (seeing as how he thought he was out smarting us). Maybe he did feel he was immune, i don't know. I still think he belongs in the HOF for his #s. But it's been a really long day for me, so ill talk more (nicer language) tomorrow.

GREAT ONE

Interesting question, curious to know the answer if anyone has it.

120

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:02

GO: Written. Rule for Election

121

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:02

Great One - Baseball rules make a person who is "banned from baseball" ineligible to be placed on the HOF ballot. If they are reinstated, then they again become eligible to be on the ballot.

The ineligibility only applies during whatever time they are banned.

While they are banned, they are not even allowed to enter a MLB stadium at any time - apparently to keep them from having any chance of being a bad influence on the players and the games being played.

122

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:08

PD + F Gump-

Thank you both.

Now what are the odds of getting the 75 Reds to be forced to forfeit their WS title to the Sox??????

:)

123

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:20

Gump Baseball rules make a person who is "banned from baseball" ineligible to be placed on the HOF ballot.

Umm...that's not a real good argument, because this "baseball rule" was only adopted by the HoF in 1991, at the request/suggestion of MLB, to keep Rose off the ballot. Before 1991 there was no such rule.

So the rule was expressly directed at Rose, and there is no history/tradition argument to say that MLB should not now say "we are keeping Rose on the ineligible list, but we recommend that he be HoF-eligible."

Toral

124

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:28

Stamati, apology accepted. Know that I didn't feel slighted by your comments, so really it's no harm, no foul for me. I've learned that some people mistake the way others type and it's hard to convey tone through words alone. I'll have a spirited debate with the best of them as long as everything sticks to the arguments and does not resort to personal attacks. Attacking the argument is one thing, attacking the person is another.

Which brings me back to Rose. Being a bad person is one thing in baseball. Directly attacking the integrity of the game is another, and much worse. Just 5 or so years ago, I thought what Rose did was okay as long as he apologized. I didn't see the big deal. I, like you, thought that stats were all of what got you in the Hall of Fame. And, for the most part, they are. But as the past few years have passed, I've begun to realize what an attack on the game it was that Rose did with his gambling. I've realized how a single bet doesn't just have the potential to impact one game, but many games into the future. I've realized that it's one thing to make an honest mistake, or to lose your head on an occassion and get into a fight with another person, but it's something completely different to knowingly break one of the most sacred rules in baseball over and over and over again. And then to lie about it for year after year after year! It all speaks to Rose's belief that he is above the game; that he is somehow above the rules of the "common folk."

However, a funny thing happened on the road to the Hall of Fame for Pete Rose. He ran into a road bump called resolve. MLB has not, to date, caved in like he expected them to. They have not decided that he's suffered enough and they have most certainly not opened their arms and invited him into the Hall. He's beginning to realize this now. He's beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, only that light is the fire that is burning up his dreams of one day being enshrined in the Hall. He's running out of time, quickly, and he knows it now. Why else does he release his book the same week that the HoF announces their latest inductees? (By the way, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I actually agree with Joe Morgan that it was beyond wrong for Pete Rose to steal the HoF spotlight away from Eck and Molitor. This, to me just speaks volumes about who Rose is looking out for and what he thinks about everybody else)

Great One points out that the fans want Pete Rose in the Hall, but do they? Who, exactly, are these fans? I've heard the stories on CNN and other news stations saying 60% or more of those polled think Pete Rose should be in the Hall. But are those people really fans? Are they the ones that will visit the Hall? If I asked my brother whether or not Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, he would say, "of course!" Why? Because he's nothing more than a casual baseball observer who knows that Pete Rose broke some record and guys who break records should be in the Hall. Oh, and he gambled? Yeah, well, what's the big deal? It's not like it's illegal, right? So who are these "fans" really? From all the real fans that I've talked to outside of this forum, the answer has been a unanimous and very strong, "NO!" So maybe they're asking the wrong "fans." Or maybe they're just not asking fans at all.

I simply think that it is important above everything else that MLB stand firm on this issue. They need to hold true to something and they need to show that breaking rules like Pete Rose did will absolutely not be tolerated. At all! Show that a lifetime ban truly is the "death sentence" that it is supposed to be. Sad as it may be for me, as a fan of the game, to not see someone as great of a player as Rose not inducted into the Hall, it will serve as a lesson that nobody is above the game. Not even one of the greatest hitters of all time, Pete Rose.

125

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:30

TORAL - You are correct. But there is a bit more to the story.

Prior to 1991, there was an INFORMAL rule against ineligible players being on the ballot/elected. But because of the other players that had been banned and the timing of the other situations, the issue wasnt questioned until Rose was about to be considered. At that point, baseball was forced to FORMALIZE what had previously been an unwritten rule.

126

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:41

You are correct, GUMP. Shoeless Joe Jackson wasn't elected because the voters, informally, considered him not suited. Although I would note that the "informal" rule only existed because the individual HOF voters themselves accepted it; perhaps the voters could be trusted to consider the character requirements when voting again.

My point is just that the rule has to stand on its own merits, not because there is anything sacrosanct/super-historical about it.

Toral

127

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Thu, Jan 08, 2004, 23:53

My earlier comments were quite vigorously pointed out as being incorrect when I referenced that one of the steps Rose was required to take to achieve reinstatement was his admission of guilt. For those who just finished watching the entire interview in it's context, there's one major statement that sticks out for me - Gibson asked Rose directly whether there was ANY understanding on his part that his admission of guilt was of any consequence when consideration of reinstatement was the issue. Rose said absolutely not - that there was absolutely no agreement whatsoever that by making this admission now (however bad the timing), he would gain no favor with those who would be involved in any control over his possible reinstatement. That being said, what-in-the-world does he have to gain from the situation? For those arguing the financial angle, yes, I did go buy the book today, but I would have bought it any other time over the last fifteen years, and I'm sure many feel the same way. I've had MLB's side of the story drummed into my head for the last fifteen years while I've seen nothing other than soundbytes of Rose's side. I bought the book because I wanted to hear what he had to say in HIS words, and to make my opinion based on BOTH sides. This is the first opportunity I've had to do so because I don't know Rose personally and have never had the chance to sit down and ask him the questions I've had. KKB made a great point earlier (post #95 I think?) about whether our society has evolved and advanced - where I differ from his opinion is that if we really want to feel that our society has advanced, we should look much deeper here. For as much as we all love baseball, even at the major league level it is still two things...a GAME and a BUSINESS. That being said, I will restate my earlier point - in this day and age (since many feel we can't hold prior HOF'ers to the same standards we hold the new ones to since they lived in an entirely different culture), why do we feel that this man should be held to higher standards than we hold the rest of our society to? I apologize for the rambling, but the interview made me feel even more passionately that I'm right here. I agree with everyone who stated their opinion before that each "crime" was more/less acceptable because of our society's views at the time. The reason I feel that this should all be forgiven is that our society today seems to have no problem with "gamblers". Our society seems to be more concerned with those who commit what we consider to be "serious" crimes - assault, drug abuse, etc. The question I ask in response to KKB's statement is this - has our society not advanced far enough to realize that as long as the man didn't bet against his team or conspire to "fix" games, are there really not many more of our "heroes" who need to make amends than someone who liked the thrill of betting?

128

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 00:38

CLV - You are correct and incorrect. But in either case, the answer still ends up as "no" to Pete.

You are correct that baseball is "only a game" - but then, by that same logic, you have to also allow that "thus if the game wants to have a rule that bans Pete for life, it is a game and no big deal." You cant say it is unimportant, and then care about it.

You are incorrect when you say that gambling is not significant in regards to baseball because society accepts it. Giving a wink and a nod to gambling on bseball, by its participants, infringes on the product itself that is being offered: HONEST COMPETITION.

If you dont think HUGE problems ensue by allowing gamblers and gambling to be a part of the game, then you need to review the history of baseball in the early 1900's - because you are missing an obvious fact that is at the root of the whole issue with Pete.

Baseball doesnt want to be the WWE. Without such strict rules, that was their course.

It appears to me that baseball has to choose between BANNING PETE and WWE-type-competition. Whether you like the choice or not, I hope you dont like the alternative - cause baseball doesnt.

You also said "I bought the book because I wanted to hear what he had to say in HIS words, and to make my opinion based on BOTH sides. This is the first opportunity I've had to do so because I don't know Rose personally and have never had the chance to sit down and ask him the questions I've had." ...Ummmmm, your rationale is odd. You have already had the chance to buy his story in his own words. 1999. For money. Different story.

Your assertion that Pete's side of the story is unknown is silly. The only thing you are getting is his CURRENT version. Just like you could have paid for in 1999. And just like you may be able to get again in 2007 with something completely different once again.

This is all about money. Just like the previous books were. And just like the next one, which will later be again offering "the whole truth from Pete's side of the story."

129

blue hen, almighty
ID: 27048221
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 00:44

I haven't posted in this thread since August, it seems, but I actually have an opinion, although Pete Rose is one of my least favorite topics to talk about.

The punishment for betting on baseball games is a LIFETIME BANISHMENT. Pete Rose should remain banned from baseball for the rest of his life. Period. If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then change the rules. Until the rules are changed, leave it alone.

As for the Hall of Fame, I don't put Pete there either, even if he is reinstated. Statistically, he gets my vote, but I reserve the right to want to keep him out on moral grounds. Great player, a pleasure to watch, but sacrificing the integrity of the game is as bad as it gets.

130

holt
ID: 105555
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 00:55

what is WWE?

131

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 01:07

HOLT - WWE = Pro wrestling. The staged stuff. Very athletic, but not a real contest in anyone's eyes.

CLV - You quoted Jayson Stark as a Rose supporter. If that matters to your view, it appears he is changing his mind now - and the sense is that that, even WITH reinstatement, he would NOT get voted in.

Jayson Stark, re the Pete Rose issue

"But this is a man whose only real hope for reinstatement is to maintain his status as a sympathetic public figure ....For nearly 15 years, baseball has allowed Rose to position himself as a sympathetic martyr in the eyes of a huge segment of the public. Now, all of a sudden, he isn't looking so sympathetic."

132

holt
ID: 105555
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 01:27

thanks gump - I had heard of WWF before but not WWE.
Wow - just the mention of pro wrestling fills me with a feeling of... discouragement.

133

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 07:42

Holt- The World Wildlife Fund (or is it Foundation) sued the WWF and made them change their name, and they became the WWE.

KKB- I agree with your assessment. I think harder core baseball fans have a better understanding of the whole thing. They understand that while what someone like Cobb did was actually a worse crime, Pete's was more damaging to baseball and it's credibility. They fear a time when it is like boxing and every time there is an upset, people start wondering who had money on the game.

However, the casual fans that you described are the ones not paying attention any more. They are the ones causing the decline in ratings. Just look at where attendances are down. It isn't in known hardcore baseball meccas, it is "everywhere else." These are the fans baseball needs if it wants to be as big as it had been. Right now across the country it is trailing football by quite a bit, and if it isn't trailing basketball, it will be soon once the Lebron James phenominon gets into high gear.

134

holt
ID: 105555
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 08:12

The lifetime bans were put into place at a time when players were paid whatever peanuts the owners wanted to flip at them. There was a high risk of gambling ruining the game simply because underpaid players were easily bought. The punishment was more from a practical standpoint than from a moral one.

Things are different now. The risk of gambling actually affecting the outcome of any game now seems like 0%. The players are rich. Rose probably did it more for thrills than anything else. What he did was wrong but the question is "does the punishment fit the crime?". In the old black-sox era a strong statement had to be made to stop the corruption. That statement no longer seems necessary. Wouldn't a fine and long suspension be fitting now? What we need now is punishment for guys using steroids, not for guys gambling.

Let's get with the times and get the punishment right. (Also - MLB needs to take a strong stand on testing for steroids regardless of the players union position).

135

holt
ID: 105555
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 08:15

What's the E for?
World Wrestling Exhibition?

136

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 08:42

Entertainment.

137

blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 10:25

I was actually trying to put Pete Rose into WWE terms yesterday. He's the most obvious "heel" (bad guy). But honestly, who else are heels? I guess you could say Wil Cordero is a heel and in some ways Alex Rodriguez is a heel, but what's Barry Bonds? Who are the faces? Jeff Bagwell? Scott Rolen? Not in Philly, he's not. And what in the world do you call Rex Hudler?

138

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 10:30

clv, "Has our society not advanced far enough to realize that as long as the man didn't bet against his team or conspire to "fix" games, are there really not many more of our "heroes" who need to make amends than someone who liked the thrill of betting?"

Why is it only bad if he bet AGAINST his team? You'll note that Rose has repeatedly skirted the issue of whether or not he bet FOR his team. And, as I pointed out eariler, betting FOR one's team is equally as bad as betting AGAINST one's team.

[Cue the back in time music]

Imagine Rose sitting in his office on a Wednesday afternoon. He sees a weekend series coming up that he thinks he can bet for his team for the 3 games and make some money because they're underdogs.

Rose looks at his pitcher rotation and realizes that he has his best pitchers throwing Wed and Thu night. So, he quickly makes an adjustment to move those pitchers to Fri and Sat. If he's betting on the game, he certainly wants his best starters going, right?

So Wed night is upon us and the Reds are in a close game. A situation arises late in the game where one would think Rose would use a reliever. Instead, he leaves the starter in. In fact, he leaves both starters in on Wed and Thu much longer than anyone would expect him to and they lose both games as a direct result of this.

And then the Fri, Sat, and Sun games are upon us. The key starters are ready to go and they do. The moment any of them are in danger, Rose yanks them in favor of a well-rested bullpen. He uses pinch-hitters in every key situation. Where there used to be a question of whether or not he would replace a player, he replaces them in favor of the more rested player. The Reds go on to win all 3 games as a direct result of using well-rested players.

Is this scenario THAT difficult to imagine? For me it's not and for me it's equally as damaging to the team and to the sport as betting on other teams and/or betting against one's team. And for me, that means that it doesn't matter who Rose betted for or against, it simply matters that he be on baseball.

Great One, I think baseball's problems with fans, casual and/or hardcore, goes deeper than Pete Rose. Would fans, any of them, start going to games in droves simply because MLB let Rose into the Hall? I highly doubt it. At least not any more than normal. Because of that, I think MLB should hold their stance and realize that those fans that go to the games will continue to go, regardless of the Rose situation. Those who don't, likely won't. I just don't see the Pete Rose situation as a determining factor for fans as to whether or not to follow baseball.

139

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 11:04

KKB-

I wasn't implying that the banning of Pete Rose is the reason people aren't going to baseball games.

I was saying that the fact that baseball isn't as fan friendly as other sports. The Pete Rose thing is an example of the problem, not the problem itself.

140

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 11:06

I think you're right about baseball. But (as this thread shows) fans are very split about Rose's Hall eligibility, so it probably isn't the case that this is another example of baseball not fan friendly.

pd

141

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 11:14

PD-

I think most here are for the banning of Rose from the Hall, but I would say that those here are also not the ones abandoning the game. Most polls show people in favor of Rose getting in. If he were to do a public stage where he cried or something, it would be through the roof. People rally behind sympathetic figures, and those casual fans will see him as just that (the rest of us here have a little more insight)

BH-

I think Steinrenner is like Ted Dibiasi when he had the stable known as "The Corporation," so he would probably be a huge heel.

142

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 11:48

Blue Hen - as for the WWE "heel" nominations, what about Alomar? His use of an ump as a spitoon has to qualify him, doesn't it?

143

Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 11:54

Steinbrenner as a heel......rofl. Good one, but I think he's more like Vince McMahon ;-)

144

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 11:58

re Alomar: He was a heel, and then turned (he and Umpire John Hirschbeck made up and Robbie has actually done work on behalf of Hirschbeck's charity for his late son's disease). I picture the two of them tagging up now.

145

Ender
ID: 459217
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 12:04

Re: 127

You say you would have bought the book any time in the last 15 years.

Did you buy the book the first time when it was called "Pete Rose: My story" when it was chock full of all the denials and lies perpetrated on even his most loyal fans for the last 15 years?

146

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 12:17

KKB, I do understand your point about how his choice to bet on a certain day COULD affect his decisions on other days, but I have yet to see any evidence that it did. My point all along (somewhat generalized) coincides with what holt said in #134...with the advances in salaries of players and managers (even in Rose's time) does anyone really believe that he was plunking down $500 in an effort to pay for his children's food, or was it quite possibly more about having that rush? Of course it was different in the early days because the players weren't even paid the same salaries as many who worked in factories, so certainly the temptations and reasons for betting on or fixing games were more evident. My statement will continue to be that I think that there are many more injustices in today's (as well as Rose's) times than whether someone bet his team was going to win. I've never seen any stories that Rose ever changed his rotation or lineup BECAUSE he wanted to bet on a particular day. The teams he managed weren't particularly good as I recall. Did he bet on the days he had his best pitcher on the hill? More than likely. Would I bet on the Red Sox when Wakefield was going instead of Pedro? Not likely regardless of the matchups. Whether in the minority or not, whether I'm one of the "informed fans" mentioned before or not, my opinion remains that as long as there's no evidence presented that he bet against his team, or that the in-game decisions on a day that he wasn't betting were influenced by whether he was planning to bet the next day, I feel Rose has done his time for what he did. I only finished the first two chapters of the book last night after the interview, but should have it finished this weekend. I'm a big believer in "never saying never", but there's been nothing in the book so far that would lead me to think my stance will change, and I've yet to have an arguement here sway me - all here have made good points and have reason for feeling the way they do, I simply disagree with several of the points.

147

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 12:27

RE #145. No I didn't buy the first book Ender. I can't say that it was whether I was less interested, or that I didn't think it had anything in particular to offer. I've said all along I've never questioned whether he bet, regardless of his original denials (although I think several misunderstood that originally). I'm much more interested in hearing what he has to say now that he realizes that his "aura of greatness" has worn off. Much like I was more interested in hearing Clinton explain why he said he never inhaled or "had sexual relations with that woman - Ms. Lewinsky", not the denial that it had ever happened. My experience is that we as individuals are all flawed, regardless of what morals we choose to espouse. What sets the "stronger" or "better" of us from the lesser is how we deal with our flaws after we've been forced to face them, not whether we have them in the first place.

148

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 12:28

Not much of a wrasslin' fan PD, but that would seem a rather interesting pairing !!!

149

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 12:30

You think Rose was betting because he needed the cash?

People may have bet for different reasons in the past (or, have been more susceptible to the shady characters that gambling often brings), but gambling is wrong because the inherent fairness of the game is called into question when a person involved in the game has a different interest involved than his job.

You may not believe that betting for your team to win a certain game is not a bad thing at all, but surely you can see that someone who bets for his team to win a certain game is less apt to care about the effect of winning that game will have on other games? A manager might very well work his players in a win-at-all-costs way for a game and make it more difficult for the team to win games he happens not to have a wager.

Also, despite what you might feel about a particular rule, that rule takes on additional significance when a player agrees to it as a condition of his job.

Rose agreed to follow the rule. He broke the rule many, many times. He lied about breaking the rule, and now he says he's come clean. And we should now let him have the benefit of not gambling or lying because he was a good ballplayer?

He should be banned if for no other reason than he would be a shoo-in to the Hall if it weren't for his own actions. A better example of taking responsiblity for your actions could not be found in baseball invented it.

pd

150

Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 12:43

clv - I think your opinion that because you can't see clear evidence that he changed the way he managed on days he bet that you won't believe it is really naive. Talk about "Rose"-colored glasses! I don't think it's that much of a stretch to compare that kind of logic to "Well, I didn't actually SEE John Malvo pull the trigger, so until I do I won't believe it". I think it's common sense.

I doubt it takes a Ph.D in psychology to have a pretty good idea of Rose's state of mind when he was betting baseball. Many people a lot smarter than me compare a gambling addiction to other addictions, such as alchohol and drugs. When you are in need of that next fix, often times logic and common sense go out the window, and thoughts of what is best for others (i.e a baseball team) completely pale in comparison to what you need to do to help your fix. Period.

And, IMO your opinion that the $500 a game wasn't a big deal, etc., points have been made previously that you have Rose in debt as much as $500,000 (by some counts) to bookies.....who are of course part of organized crime. As someone said, Knuckles and Rocko are coming to collect a little....you think that has no effect on a man's thinking?

151

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 13:30

No I don't think he was betting because he needed the cash PD...I think you misunderstood. I said "does anyone really think he was plunking down $500 in an effort to pay for his children's food, or was it quite possibly more about having that rush?" I do think it was about the rush. I dug myself a hole with a bookie while in college, and my reason was that it made the games much more interesting to me, not because I "needed" the cash to pay my bills. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions here guys - you all have valid reasons for feeling the way you do, I simply disagree because I weight my reasons differently than yours. As for the "Rose"-colored glasses Species, I find that I always try to use them whether it's on this particular issue or any other. The reason they didn't string Malvo up on the courthouse lawn the minute they caught him is that our society was founded somewhat on using those same glasses. No matter what others say, each citizen of our country is to be afforded a chance to answer any and all charges brought against him. He deserved a "fair" trial where his peers served as jurors just as Rose does. However, if those jurors have predisposed opinions on any matter before them, it is their duty to recuse themselves from judging him. I certainly wouldn't agree to participating in the final decision on Rose's (or Malvo's for that matter) fate because I already have an opinion about what I feel that fate should be (as stated before) - I DO think Rose deserves to be in the HOF, however I DON'T think he should ever be allowed to manage or hold a position with any MLB franchise where his actions could have a direct influence over the outcome of a game. The reasons I can't agree with your assumption as to his state of mind when he was betting on baseball are 1) I myself have gambled before, and 2) regardless of how intelligent I may "think" I am, I'm not the qualified psychologist you refer to, therefore my opinion would be inadmissable because it would never be considered an "expert" opinion, which is the only type our court systems will accept. In that spirit, I would also hope that the rest of the "informed fans" here would also recuse themselves if they were afforded the opportunity to decide his fate for the same reason - even though our opinions differ, you still have already made a decision and to some extent are closed-minded as well as I am.

153

Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 14:25

clv - Just so there's no misunderstanding, my entire 2nd paragraph in post 150 is not meant to point specifically to you - as you can see I didn't say "I think you don't need a Ph.D....", whereas in the other 2 paragraphs I specifically start the point with saying "your opinion....."

I worded it specifically to be a very generalized series of points to add to the part of the argument against your belief that Rose didn't manage any differently on days he had a bet. So no I wasn't trying to make you out as a shrink.

Even though a new perspective to that point is unlikely to change your opinion, perhaps this explanation better explains the spirit of my making that point.

154

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 14:49

CLV - Your justifications for Pete in a nutshell:

-He was one that I liked and adored.
-He was more popular than most players and he set records, so his talent should reduce his punishment.
-He gambled, but I gambled also and thus it cant be a big deal.
-He did something wrong but others have flaws that we overlook.
-He might not have done it in the WORST way possible - there are worse things that he did NOT do.
-I would have made a different and more equitable rule, so this rule shouldn't be applied.

You know why I and many others reject those arguments? Because the thematic logic of that sort of "ethics" is what is used to excuse any action, any time, anywhere, for any deed. When you use that logic, you eliminate every possible notion of right and wrong from existence.

What you are doing, consciously or unconsciously, is to make fairness and justice be something that is based on COMPARISON. It is called "relativism." And when you reduce justice to a relativistic concept, then you can ALWAYS find some way to justify any wrong, no matter how blatant. All you have to do is to compare it to something worse.

Inherent fairness and justice has to have an OBJECTIVE standard with OBJECTIVE application if it is to retain its meaning. Otherwise, the line gets blurrier and blurrier til there is no line. Rules no longer become rules - they become sort of like vague "guidelines" that lose meaning.

If you want justice and fairness, there is only one way it is maintained. You define "right" (steer clear of gambling) from "wrong" (gamble on baseball). You define a penalty (permanently ineligible). And then you apply it to all.

As long as you propound relativistic arguments and accept relativistic standards, you will in your mind be able to justify ANYTHING Pete did.

But for those of us who believe in OBJECTIVE standards, the case is basic - he knew and accepted the standard as a condition of his entrance into baseball, he violated the standard, he gets the punishment.

There are 4-foot tall signs in the doorway to EVERY clubhouse in major league baseball. Letters 2 inches high. A meeting every year with every team to ensure clarity of the content on the sign and to hammer the issue into the consciousness. This is the entire text. There is no other such rule posted anywhere, ever.

"Rule 21(d)

(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."

Clear-cut.

155

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 14:53

No misunderstanding at all Species. My response is only to agree that I do attempt to look at most things with the "glass half-full" attitude or through "Rose"-colored glasses just as you point out. The reason for the mention of being a qualified psychologist is in no way meant to be a dig at you either - as I intimated, one of the problems we ALL often have is that we feel that when something appeals to our "common-sense" that we are somehow qualified to make judgements for no reason other than that common-sense. My point is that while that's fine for discussions in a forum such as this, they'd hold absolutely no water if voiced in an actual trial. The standards and rules of evidence are much higher there - it's understandable to assume that you are correct in assessing Rose's state-of-mind (and quite a large number will agree with you), however I just wanted to point out that if you were testifying at trial, an attorney would likely have a field-day embarassing you when he (or she) brought up the fact that you weren't offering an "expert" opinion, therefore would likely be able to supress a large amount of your testimony, even if that testimony was quite logical.

156

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 16:53

Added charges are possible against Pete, as noted by David Letterman during his monologue Tuesday:

"Have you read Pete Rose's book? ... In the book, Pete Rose admits that he bet on baseball games.

"So that's quite a revelation, but that's not the worst of it.

"He also admits that several times he taped the game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball!"

;-)

157

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 18:34

Well, I'm glad that discussion is over. The rules say that Rose should be declared permanently ineligible. He has been so declared; the rules have been followed. Now the question is only when it is (or was) appropriate to end the sentence. I think most (not all) people who I know who have thought about it -- I am being very careful here; I am trying very hard to avoid even seeming to insult people who disagree, because Pete Rose discussions can get very inflamed -- think the right sentence is about 10 to 15 years. In that area. And it's tough to figure when to start counting -- from the crime, or the confession? I think, to be honest, you start counting from the confession, but give Rose half off if he stays straight. So, let's say, Rose should be reinstated, let's say 7 or 8 years from now, if he stays clean.

Rose after all wasn't like Shoeless Joe Jackson. Jackson was a crook, a guy who threw World Series games. Rose did only what is natural -- supporting his own team. Now there's a very good reason why betting on one's team isn't allowed -- it can lead to being in thrall to bookmakers, to the type of thing Judge Landis cleaned up in the 1920s. The rule against betting on one's own team is what is known in law as a prophylactic rule. Most people, if they know that word, know it only as a euphemism for a condom. And the meaning is the same; a "proph" protects you against bad consequences of an act that is not in itself bad. And so we know Pete Rose didn't do anything actually harmful, so he has to take only the formal punishment that a just civilization requires for serious but innocent rule-breaking. 10 to 15 years, on the high side.

Of course it goes without saying that he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame. The voters can decide, and are the right people to decide, whether these unfortunate incidents are enough of a character-marring problem to disallow him.

But Hell! Rose has had a net positive impact on baseball, unlike Bud Selig or Bowie Kuhn. It's a very strange world where a creature like Bud Selig gets to rule on Pete Rose's qualifications to the Hall of Fame.

Toral

158

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 20:44

TORAL - Good analysis. But you forget a couple of items.

(1) When the rule is "society's" then society and its individuals need to determine the apt punishment, as you say. But this isnt a societal crime or penalty. The rule is for a private enterprise with its own rules of behavior. If you want to play their game, you do so by their standards. It is not the place of society to IMPOSE other standards.

And the ultimate in "punishment" that they impose is to essentially say "You cant be a part of this anymore. Go away and don't come back." If someone demonstrates an unwillingness to honor the foundation of their enterprise, it is eminently fair.

If it was any other business, you would not expect a fired (with extreme cause) employee to be owed his job later. You wouldnt say "10 or 15 years is as long as they can fire him, then you have to re-employ him." Nor would you expect the business to put up a plaque of the employee to honor them, even if he was their best salesman (for example) while he was employed there.

Your assertion that 10-15 years is plenty doesnt hold up, when you understand this is not 10-15 years of incarceration. Pete's crime is no big deal to society, but the punishment is also "no big deal" in the ultimate scheme of things too - "just go somewhere else to work or play and leave us alone" is all that is imposed.

(2) It is NOT FAIR for society or outsiders to demand to amend the "correct penalty" as you think society has a right to do here. The "correct penalty" is already determined, when the rule was written. There is no inherent right for every man to be THE JUDGE of what is proper. In this case, baseball is the judge- and they deemed "permanent" to be the correct amount, for valid reasons that they learned through experience were important. Maybe one day they will feel the threats no longer exist - but until THEY feel secure, they are prudent to keep their hard stance, IMO.

159

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 22:08

FG-

Who are the "outsiders" you seem to think has no say in what goes on? I took it that you were talking about the fans of the game, and if that is the case then I disagree. Baseball is for the fans, not for the commissioner. They are the ones who fund the whole thing.

160

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Jan 09, 2004, 22:53

GREAT ONE - Yes we the fans are indeed the outsiders. We are the clients, the consumers that buy (or dont buy) the product offered by the Business of Baseball.

Any business must set its internal rules: not the fans/customers. Yes all rules (indeed ALL THINGS within a business) are set with the customer in view - but my role as a fan is to buy, or not buy, what is being sold. But it is not my role to run the business and determine how it functions.

161

yankeeh8tr
ID: 52052914
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 09:42

So just for the record - Pete Rose got more hits than anyone in baseball. Pete Rose played with passion. Pete Rose is a gambler. Pete Rose got in over his head betting on other sports. Pete Rose turned to gambling on baseball because he thought he could dig himself out of the hole his gambling put him in. Pete Rose got caught gambling on baseball. Pete Rose got and accepted a liftime ban from baseball, in accordance to it's cardinal rule - the only rule posted in every clubhouse in the League. Pete Rose lied on (and I cannot stress this enough because it goes to character and trust issues of a man who now claims he's "coming clean") every repeated occasion for a decade and a half, inmputing the reputations of his accusers and lamenting how bad, unfair and conspiracy ridden his situation was.

And the argument for reinstating him is what, exactly?

Rose knew and accepted the consequences for his actions - the only decent thing he's done in connection with the situation he created. Why should he now be excused? The arrogance of the idea (which implies Pete believes he is above the rules) is example enough of why Pete needs to stay banned for life - he still doesn't get it. His day "late, dollar short" confession not with standing, Pete has done little to impress upon me (or most fans) that he is sorry for little else than getting caught. The argument that there are other drunks, bigots, miscreants and bad guys in the HoF is moot - by and large the offenders were harmful and/or offensive to themselves and their intimates, not the game. Mickeys drinking, Cobbs bigotry and all the issues of the other miscreants are NOT THE ISSUE here - we are not holding Pete to a "higher standard". He is, and will remain, a pariah on the game of baseball, imperfect as it is.

162

yankeeh8tr
ID: 52052914
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 09:54

And oh yeah, in addition to Pete's betting, my brother has a few other tidbits I can't take credit for coming up with...

Rose is maintaing his lie about having never bet from the managers office, that despite a multitude of wiretaps proving he did.

This the guy who once sold hundreds of autographed baseball bats on QVC.com, but half of them had to be returned as it turned out Rose did NOT sign them. Just another Pete scam.

He treated his wife like dirt, and never did a charitable thing in his life for anyone else. He maliciously ruined Ray Fosse's career.

He is also one of the most overrated players ever with no speed, no power, a lousy stolen base percentage, crummy defensive, and a BA of only just over .300. He was also a bad manager.

163

Sludge
Leader
ID: 25919714
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 10:33

He maliciously ruined Ray Fosse's career.

I find it a bit hypocritical to yearn for the days when the All-Star game meant something and then pull out this bit about some "malicious" intent during a play at the plate. Fossey was blocking the plate. He knew what was coming. What was Rose supposed to do? Pull up a couple of feet from the plate and pat Fossey on the head?

164

holt
ID: 105555
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 10:40

Gump, I'm sure that CLV doesn't need you to teach him what he thinks in a nutshell. Personally, I find your position to be a bit on the Quaker side. "The boy stole an apple! Put him in the stocks, so that all may understand good and evil!" Since you seem interested in philosophical terminology, you would do well to read Robert Pirsig's ideas on static and dynamic patterns in the book "Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals".

165

Khahan
ID: 521117920
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 11:01

Well, I must say, I have changed my mind on reinstating Pete Rose to any degree. Before I felt he should be 're-instated' to the extent that he be allowed in the Hall. Now, after reading Rob Neyer's article, I feel his ban should stay and be 100%.
What swayed me in particular was the section of his column in which he discusses Commissioner Landis setting down rules and codifing them.

166

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 11:15

While it's not as big of a deal as his earlier gambling, I found it interesting to read this article that says Pete Rose still gambles. But, of course, Rose says it isn't a problem and shouldn't be a concern. When asked if he would be willing to stay away from gambling if it was a condition of reinstatement, Rose said, "I would do anything they say, but they have to understand -- I'm not telling them what to do -- but they also have to understand one of my means of entertainment is periodically going to the races."

This is interesting considering the statement a doctor he was seeing when he received his ban said: "[Rose] has concluded that he is powerless before gambling, that he will begin an ongoing treatment program and that he can never gamble on anything again."

I particularly like what Fay Vincent said: "I think [reinstating Rose when he is still gambling] would be a suicidal step for baseball. I think it would be critically important to make sure from someone professional that he would be able to control his impulses."

This does become a serious issue when considering whether or not Rose should be able to manage again.

Toral, "It's a very strange world where a creature like Bud Selig gets to rule on Pete Rose's qualifications to the Hall of Fame." Actually, it wasn't Selig who ruled on Rose's eligibility. That would be Fay Vincent, the former commissioner. Selig is simply upholding his ruling.

167

holt
ID: 105555
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 11:24

heya Khahan - what was it that swayed you? Just curious. Neyer sounds like he is on the other side of the fence:

"It's also been suggested that reinstating Pete Rose will open the door for a return to baseball's bad old days, with players laying down bets from Atlantic City to Las Vegas and all points between. But to suggest that reinstating Rose after a 15-year exile will result in a rash of gambling is just as silly as suggesting that Charlie Hustle = Shoeless Joe. Rose paid a heavy penalty for his crime, and it's not likely that any current players or managers will rush to follow in Rose's clumsy footsteps."

168

Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 11:37

Actually, it wasn't Selig who ruled on Rose's eligibility. That would be Fay Vincent, the former commissioner. Actually Bart Giamatti, his predesessor. Just to make things worse for Rose, it's been reported that Vincent and others blame the stress of having to deal with Rose for Giamatti's fatal heart attack.

Toral

169

Khahan
ID: 521117920
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 12:01

Holt,
I believe the article as a whole swayed me. However, the way Neyer detailed the dark side of baseball affecting the game in the late 1800's and early 1900's until Landis came along is drove this home for me.
Even when gambling to some extent was an acceptable part of the sport, there were still abuses which affected the game in very bad ways.
Landis cleaned it up and made it completely unacceptable to gamble on baseball in any way, shape or form. The rules were set down clearly. The punishments were very clear.
The rules in particular do seem to be held in higher regard by baseball as a whole.
Rose tossed them aside and played by his own rules. He should pay the consequences that he knew he would face when he decided to go on his own with gambling.

170

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 12:57

Toral, DOH! You're right. But I did remember that it wasn't Selig. ;)

171

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 13:50

Gump-

I go back to my point about baseball's difficulties stemming from the fact that many of the "insiders" think that the game is all about them. The players look out for the players....the owners (and commisioner) look out for the owners.....the umps look out for the umps, etc. In the more successful sports nowadays (football and basketball), decisions are made on how they will benefit the fans instead of how they benefit the "insiders." Based on the fact that you seem to think that the fans do not have the right to make their opinions known to the baseball "insiders," I assume that you think baseball should continue with their "love it or leave it" approach? If that is the case, then I assure you many fans will continue to leave it.

172

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 14:19

GREAT ONE - Nope, I do NOT think baseball should in general ignore the fans, or their opinions. If you as a business ignore your customer base, it is to your peril - because it is those customers that you must attract.

But at the same time, the business must do what is best for itself, as a business. And frankly, I dont see that revising the rules to reinstate Rose at this point would enhance the popularity of baseball to attract customers/fans. On the other hand, I believe that having games of doubtful competitive authenticity WOULD make a HUGE difference.

HOLT - My attitude is that "if you have a rule that matters, when it is broken, you have to enforce it. And if you do enforce it, when you apply the rule as advertised, exactly as you said you would, there is nothing excessive."

Just telling Rose to go away and do something else, due to his blatant refusal to honor the games underlying rule, is not cruel - it is not flogging, incarceration, or any such thing.

KHAHAN - I read the article by Neyer from your link. I agree with you: his historical info is persuasive AGAINST Rose. When they had no tough rules, gambling was a problem. When they said "we will kick you out permanently" then it stopped completely, til Rose decided to challenge it. Neyer sways from his data in his final paragraph, and states without ANY rationale or research that letting Pete off the hook at this point won't matter or wont make other players take the rule less seriously. That is a HUGE leap of faith, and one that is contrary to every FACT he researched and included in the article.

173

The Great One
ID: 91133420
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 14:39

FG-

Fair enough. I still say that putting Rose in the Hall would be a step in the right direction for MLB to show fans that they care what the fans think, and I also don't think allowing him into the Hall, particularly if you don't lift the ban, will bring any games' outcome into question, but since neither of us are soothsayers, we can certainly agree to disagree.

174

F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 16:29

Latest RUMOR on baseball's solution to this whole controversy:

It is widely rumored that Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig is leaning towards giving Pete Rose a two-year probationary period before Rose can be reinstated. The terms of the probation are unknown. There would be no rules changes, which means he would be eligible for the Hall after the two years ends and he is reinstated, if he fulfills the terms of the probation successfully . This, in effect, would also result in taking Rose's possible election to the HOF out of the hands of the BBWAA - by the time the probationary period ends, his 15-year window with the BBWAA will be expired and his candidacy would be kicked over to the Hall's Veterans Committee. The Veterans Committee votes every other year in the odd-numbered years: 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009.

My personal take - there is some good to it IMO, and some unsettling parts also. I see the benefit of lifting the ban from a PR standpoint and from giving Rose a shot at election to the HOF, but reinstatement also would allow Pete to take part in games - that is troubling. Perhaps the probationary period will allow him to exhibit a total change of life behavior that would ensure him not being a future problem - but with his strong affinity for gambling as a MAJOR part of everything he does, there is plenty of doubt. Then again, would he even be able to successfully satisfy the probation, and its terms?

I also wonder about this: the furor over Rose right now is extremely NEGATIVE not positive, like never before. If baseball is wanting to do something for positive PR, taking such a step NOW - at a time when Rose is seen by many writers and fans as merely being a profit-monger selling dirty little secrets for personal gain - would seem to be the absolute WORST time to do so.

Then again, no one ever accused Selig of being over-burdened with an excess of intelligence!

175

Slackjawed Yokel
Sustainer
ID: 52347519
Sat, Jan 10, 2004, 16:56

whew, I can't believe I read this entire thread. But there were really some excellent well-thought out posts. While I was somewhat on the fence before, I've bought into the arguments of KKB, PD, Gump, and others.

A topic that I still question that hasn't really been covered here (although Species touched on it in post 150) is what would have happened if Rose had taken a different approach to his guilt. As I understand it, Rose's apology amounts to 'Ok, I admit I did bet on baseball; I've upheld my end of the bargain. It's been a year since I told the commisioner, yet I'm still an outcast.'

As I've interpeted it, he's hardly expresses a tone of contrition. (not to mention the fact that he still admits to gambling today on other events). Let's say instead he had taken an approach of 'Look, I know my actions had the potential to do irreparable harm to the game of baseball. I admit that I did bet on baseball and that I did bet on games I was involved with. My gambling got to the point where I lost control, and I crossed the line. I was a gambling addict. I do not wish to again work in baseball; I don't think I've earned the trust to do so. But I would like to be eligible for the hall of fame if the writers or the veterans would decide I was worthy, and I would like to attend MLB games.'

Now this is truly hypothetical, and Rose has probably gone too far that such an apology could be taken seriously. I guess what I'm getting at is do you think that if Rose had taken a different route, one of a repentant man portraying himself as a 'victim' to his gambling disease who only wished to be enshrined in the HOF, could he have swayed the voters?

176

KrazyKoalaBears
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.

177

clv
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.

178

clv
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!

180

F 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.

181

Khahan
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.

182

Tree
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...

183

F 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.

184

Perm 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

185

clv
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.

186

The 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

187

Perm 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

188

Balrog
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

189

F 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.

190

penngray
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

191

Mattinglyinthehall
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.

192

penngray
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.

194

penngray
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?

195

penngray
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.

196

Mattinglyinthehall
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.

197

penngray
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.

198

Chris
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...

199

holt
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.

200

Da 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.

201

clv@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.

202

Stuck 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

203

Mattinglyinthehall
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.

204

F 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.

205

The 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.

206

clv
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.

207

Mattinglyinthehall
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.

208

clv
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.

209

Mattinglyinthehall
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.

210

Toral
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

211

Mattinglyinthehall
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.

212

Toral
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

213

clv
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.

214

F 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.

215

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:35

Toral, I never thought you'd go liberal on me.

216

clv
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.

217

F 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.

218

The 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.

219

F 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.)

220

The 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.

221

clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Mon, Feb 23, 2004, 22:55

A little more "fuel-to-the-fire", courtesy of Mike Schmidt...

link

222

clv
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.

223

Great 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..)

224

Khahan
ID: 31201711
Tue, Mar 02, 2004, 11:43

Its happened, Pete Rose to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

225

Perm Dude
ID: 37237148
Wed, Mar 14, 2007, 23:20

Rose: I bet every day.

226

TB
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.

Forum: basePage 15734Subject: Pete Rose to be Reinstated

Forum: base
Page 15734
Subject: Pete Rose to be Reinstated