Pete Rose deserves HOF

I gotta say I agree with you. Pete Rose was always one of my favorite players to watch. I'm willing to bet there are other players already enshrined who didn't always walk the straight and narrow in their personal life. The HOF is about how you played the game - let him in. He earned it.

While I like that Rose played hard all the time, there is much not to like. His spiking of the ball as a first baseman, his ending another player's carreer in an All Star exhibition game. Not a great sportsman or class act IMO. His abilities are without question, however.

That aside, betting ruins the integrity of the game. Steroid cheaters are at least trying to play better and win the games. If fans don't believe the players AND coaches are playing to win, there is NO game. You have professional wrestling. That is Rose's sin. It is diferent than the other moral wrongs, because it destroys the game. What about Shoeless Joe? They never let him in either. Same crime, and while he took money, he played well in the Series.

The Rose saga just goes on and on . . .

I don't know if there is evidence that he bet against his team. Any evidence out there is that he always bet for the Reds to win. It doesn't justify the fact that he bet, but I believe that he did everything he could to make sure his team won.

There are so many flawed individuals in The HOF, keeping him out is a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
Same crime, and while he took money, he played well in the Series.

With all due respect, two completely different scenarios. The Black Sox scandal involved players taking money from an outside source to throw the World Series. As far as I know, Rose bet his own money on his team to win ball games. While that may or may not have been criminal behavior - depending upon where the bets were placed - let's not forget that possession of steriods is a criminal offense under the laws of this country regardless of whether they were considered a banned substance or not under MBL guidelines.

Regardless, and getting back to my point, the distinction must be made between Pete Rose, the player, and Pete Rose, the manager. There is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part during his glorious playing career which included, among other things, 17 All-Star nominations. Permanently deny him induction as a manager...I think we're all good with that concept.

Corky is right, this has all been argued before. But, his betting his own money with bookies is hardly the point. Gamblers get in debt and then the people they owe money to can put pressure on them. Karras and Horning bet on their teams to win as well.

I personally don't think the steroids guys or the gamblers should get in. The trouble is guys like Ty Cobb were creeps too, so where do you draw the line. Obviously,it is gabling that destroys the fabric of the game and that is where baseball has chosen to draw the line. I am OK with it.

My take:

1) Shoeless Joe was an illiterate country boy the likes of which would be virtually impossible to find in today's society. He took the money because the rotten no good Comiskey treated his players like chattel. Joe never had a dime to spend on frivolity. He should be excused anyway cause he was the best player in the series and a case could be made as the best player of all time. Certainly he was the greatest Sox player of all time.
2)Cobb was a first class jagoff but arguably the best player of all time.
3)Pete Rose was the "greenie" and "reds" champion popper. He rarely played without being hyped with drugs. On top of that he gambled. I say put him in the HOF. Many of his numbers are unmatched.

This is a different era and we have turned a self righteous corner where steroids are concerned. What Pete did was just as heinous as Bonds and McGwire. The difference is that no one cared then and everyone cares about steroids in 09 (and did not care in 99!!!!).

For what it's worth; Pete Rose put up numbers that are true. Uppers, downers, whatever were in every clubhouse but were not steroids or HGH.

I agree with Jim Rice's statement that someone like a Manny Ramirez can get caught using PHD's, sit for 50 games and come back and be a LA hero.

Pete Rose should be in the HOF. JMO.

There is definitely a common thread that runs through all these eras and the scandals that went with them. That common thread is ownership and the fact that they were glad to prosper off what the players were doing, and then when the public went against it, the owners bailed and blamed the players.

The gambling back in the early 1900's was very prevelant and the owners only cracked down on the players when they had to. Mountain Landis could have thrown out some owners too. Guys like Jackson were easy targets, and were scapegoats big time. if that episode had not occurred we wouldn't have gambling as the mortal sin that it now is in baseball.

Another thing is that sportswriters (many now who have little if any baseball knowledge) love to use this power to accept guys that kissed their butts and punish guys who wouldn't. It isn't a good system no matter how you look at it.

A hero can still be a hero without being enshrined.

Keep him out. If he is banned for life..please keep it life.

Easy to understand both sides. But, Ripcord, murderers are sentenced to "life" and serve 10-20 years. If life in prison for killing another doesn't necessarily mean forever, why is baseball acting so sacrosanct as to this case?

Does this make Bud Selig feel good, that he presided over the game that produced the steroid era, that will forever alter the most hallowed of it's records, but didn't offer a place in it's hall for one of the greatest players of all time?

I guess I just think his banishment has been long enough. JMO.

Personally, I don't think there is enough mustard in the world to cover him.

I was an A's fan & remember what he did to Fosse. Totally uncalled for in an All Star game...

Mustard, as in hot dog? Well, everyone's got an opinion. I was thinking the same thing about Ricky Henderson while he was just admitted to the hall. I never liked his on field demeanor, but his numbers can't be argued with.

IMO most baseball players aren't playing for the accolades. Leading your league in a particular statistical category, or participating and winning with your team in post season play; are slim probabilities. Whether he gets to the HOF or not, or whether we think he belongs there or not; the fact of the matter is that he will always be one of the best that ever played the game.

Jim Rice was one of the most pompous j-offs that ever played the game. Right there with Bonds.

Tuzi....I lived in Boston during Jim Rice's tenure.

His close relationship with Fred Lynn served as an example to other players still working out their own peccadillo's and to the small but loud racially abhorent Boston so called "fans".

He is a great guy with good personal skills that tells it like it is, was always accessible to fans but got tired of the sissy sportswriters and stopped talking to them. For this he was villified in the press.

I'll never forget the kid that was hit with a line drive on national TV fracturing his skull and splattering blood all over several seats at Fenway. Rice bolted from the dugout to rush him into the training room which according to all reports saved his life. He then proceeded to leave the ballpark being chased by sportswriter's for a quote. They didn't get one. Tom Keane, the boy's father later credited Rice with saving the boy's life.

So, the next day, the incident received NO PRESS! Rice could have cared less about that but it's another example of what happens when you don't kiss the 3rd column's posterior.

Tuzi, I alway's respect your opinion but this time I think you may have been unduly influenced by the runts that couldn't play the game!

There is absolutely no way he should be compared to Bonds.

Just have to wonder why guys like Steve Howe was given 8 "lifetime" bans and Dwight Godden was given multiple "lifetime" bans for drug use and Rose's is the one that holds. Is doing drugs a more forgivable example for the young than betting on your team? Historically, "lifetime" bans are mere words and will be dropped to allow the players another chance. Same standard should be held for Rose. Let him in.

bballman and rosy....I repeat Rose is the poster child for amphetamines.

He wasn't the only one and they were without doubt more prevalent in the 60's and 70's and 80's than steroid use over the past 10-15 years

These pills strongly increase awareness and intensity. They also bring your body back from feeling spent. It's a false reality but at game time, not unlike the real effects of roids and HGH.

They were finally banned in 06 but players that get a prescription (ADD) can still use them.

You simply cannot differentiate drug use. A user is a user.

Don't paint Pete clean because he most definetely was not!

He's a hall of famer for sure but no way he gets 4000 hits or Rickey steals all those bases without them.

They were used in the 40's and 50's as well. Probably before that. My father has a friend who played in the 40's, 50's and early 60's and he said they were used all the time by nearly everyone. He also said the great Mickey played half his games drunk. Plenty of character issues from back then. This player also said that if steroids were available back then, they would have used them. He said anything to gain an advantage was used. He is an old man now and has no reason to lie or make things up. Don't want to get into the steroid issue with this post, but people bring up the character and integrity issue with Rose and I'm just saying that he is not the only one with issues. He is just the only one who is being held to the fire.

Soxnole, If you want to go back to the 60's, 70's and 80's, look at the players from those decades who are in the HOF. Maybe Cal Ripkin doesn't play all those consecutive games without using amphetamines. You can go on and on. You don't think that you can differentiate between uppers, downers and anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. I just don't agree. Don't use drug use as a reason for Rose's performance, unless you include Hank Aaron,Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente. Their clubhouses were serving up the same pre-game vitamins as were Pete's teams.

No one banned Rose for being a hot dog or drug use. Yes there are hot dogs and drug users in the HOF. There aren't gamblers who were caught at it in the HOF. That is the line.

Again, gambling kills the goose that lays the eggs for everyone by destroying the integrity of the game. Itegrity being defined as, "is everybody on the field trying to win the game, or is it fixed".

Gambling is treated harsher than other crimes because if the fans don't believe the game is for real, they won't pay to watch. As you all have shown, people will go to games, watch and cheer players even if they cheat, as long as they are cheating to play better and win.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
No one banned Rose for being a hot dog or drug use. Yes there are hot dogs and drug users in the HOF. There aren't gamblers who were caught at it in the HOF. That is the line.

Again, gambling kills the goose that lays the eggs for everyone by destroying the integrity of the game. Itegrity being defined as, "is everybody on the field trying to win the game, or is it fixed".

Gambling is treated harsher than other crimes because if the fans don't believe the game is for real, they won't pay to watch. As you all have shown, people will go to games, watch and cheer players even if they cheat, as long as they are cheating to play better and win.

I agree. This topic is solely about gambling and how it affects the integrity of the game. There is a sign posted in every clubhouse stating the policy.
As far as character issues (steroids), there will always be these types of problems when you are dealing with human beings from all walks of life. Whoever thought that there would be a high paid professional football player suspended for conducting dog fights?
If you can give another example of a player or manager who was proven guilty of gambling in his sport and is in the Hall of Fame, then provide it. Otherwise, you have to give professional sports credit for being consistent with this policy even if it involves a star player like Rose.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
No one banned Rose for being a hot dog or drug use. Yes there are hot dogs and drug users in the HOF. There aren't gamblers who were caught at it in the HOF. That is the line.

Again, gambling kills the goose that lays the eggs for everyone by destroying the integrity of the game. Itegrity being defined as, "is everybody on the field trying to win the game, or is it fixed".

Gambling is treated harsher than other crimes because if the fans don't believe the game is for real, they won't pay to watch. As you all have shown, people will go to games, watch and cheer players even if they cheat, as long as they are cheating to play better and win.

So let me get this straight...betting on your team to win destroys the integrity of the game but juiced-up cheaters who've gained an unfair, competitive edge on their opponent(s) does not. And, the former warrants a life-time ban while the latter receives a slap on the wrist. With all due respect, I have a real philosophical problem with that.

I don't think anyone want to put Rose in The HOF for being a manager. That is when he violated the gambling rule.

He should be in because he was a great player, simple. Let's scrutinize what all the HOF members did in their own lives outside of and after their playing days....apply it to all.

And as Soxnole's story regarding Jim Rice tells us, the idea that sportswriters like or don't like a player has nothing to do with it. Some of the best guys are the quietest guys who don't seek attention, while some of the loudmouths who were pretty good players got in based upon having images that may or may not have been accurate. Put me down as saying Rice was a better player than Ripken, who may have hurt his team as much as helped it with his streak.

Bravescoach, there is a sign in every clubhouse that states that if you gamble on baseball, you will be banned from the sport. Pete Rose thought that he was above this rule.
There is no policy as severe for the use of streoids. If you believe that there should be, that is a different discussion and I tend to agree with you.
Also, just because you bet on your own team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport. Chances are if you are betting on your team, you will use your best pitchers to secure the win. Then when you are playing a game that you are not betting to win, you will use your lesser pitchers and players. In the long run, your team's chances of making the playoffs or World Series may be at risk if you manage the team according to how you are wagering on a given day.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Rose's on field accomplishments merit a place in the Hall of Fame. However, regardless of when the gambling took place, he accepted a lifetime ban from baseball as part of his punishment. The gambling prohibition was instituted after the Black Sox case in the early 1920s. The Hall of Fame was not established until 1935 or 36. As I wasn't there, I can't say what the motivations of the founders were, but I imagine money was the prime one. Anything or anyone that would damage the money making possibilities of the HOF would be forbidden, and I imagine gambling was at the forefront then.

Mr. Rose went against a well established and long standing principle and therefore has to carry the responsiblity for his actions. Along the same lines, I heard part of an interview with a representative of the commissioner's office this week of Fox Radio. I understood him to say, sometime in the past 5 years, they had met with and basically negotiated a deal which would have allowed for Rose's reinstatement, and therefore HOF eligibility. However, Mr. Rose was not able to, or couldn't bring himself to, make the required statement of apology that the deal required. Again, accountability for his own actions or inaction.

No doubt there are many other characters in the HOF lacking a pure moral fiber, however, this can simply be defined as a rules violation. He knew the rule, he broke it, it was a rule of a game he was PRIVILEGED to play, not a right he was guaranteed.

quote:

Originally posted by Brickhouse:
Bravescoach, there is a sign in every clubhouse that states that if you gamble on baseball, you will be banned from the sport. Pete Rose thought that he was above this rule.
There is no policy as severe for the use of streoids. If you believe that there should be, that is a different discussion and I tend to agree with you.
Also, just because you bet on your own team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport. Chances are if you are betting on your team, you will use your best pitchers to secure the win. Then when you are playing a game that you are not betting to win, you will use your lesser pitchers and players. In the long run, your team's chances of making the playoffs or World Series may be at risk if you manage the team according to how you are wagering on a given day.

Brick - valid points...though I'm curious as to: A) whether those signs were in existence at the time of Rose's conduct; and B) if so, did they cite to a specific provision of the CBA or were they more of an arbitrary warning?

As to your integrity contention, I suppose one would have to further investigate those games he bet on with his managerial decisions to get a better idea. I have not heard nor read any facts nor opinions which would persuade me one way or the other though that would be an interesting research project.

Regardless, in my opinion, had Bart Giamatti known at the time what was in MLB's future, I doubt that a lifetime ban would have been forthcoming...maybe a suspension along the lines of the present day penalty for drug offenders. MLB has foregiven the recent likes of Giambi, Pettitte, Manny, and A-Rod (like it or not) for crimes no less severe than that of Rose...high time to extend him the same compassion and courtesy...he's been punished enough.

Give him his proper place in the Hall for what he accomplished on the playing field as that's ultimately what the inductees have been judged by...numbers. There is no debate that he was one of the greatest players of all time who made some poor choices after his playing days were over. Yet, was his conduct so egregious as to permanently deprive him of a deserving spot in the HOF? I think not.

I will confess that I can't stand all the moral equivalence I see on this board...but I attended a Northwestern baseball pre-season event a number of years ago. The speaker was George Will who is a baseball purist of sorts. I asked him then his opinion on Pete Rose getting into the HOF. Now keep in mind...Pete had not openly confessed anything yet. Mr. Will said " Yes, I would put him in the Hall of Fame with this statement written underneath his bust..." THE BUM BET ON BASEBALL ".


I didn't agree with him then and to this day think it is a slap to every kid who ever has a dream of being a major league player. Oh well, the Bum comment wouldn't be all that bad either !

Who you are when no-one is looking is an ideal worth keeping sacred.

Said it before, I'll say it again. Players like Steve Howe and Dwight Gooden received multiple "lifetime" bans for their drug use. To receive multiple "lifetime" bans, you had to have been forgiven of the previous one. What makes drug use that much more forgivable than bettin on your own team? If they can be forgiven, why can't Mr. Rose. Is drug use something you would rather have your kid do than betting? Lots of questions for the pundits.

No matter how many times the betting vs drugs is differentiated, you ignore the reasoning. Brickhouse explained it, yet the logic is ignored.

By the way, no known steroid users have been let in to the HOF. Where is Mark McGuire? His numbers aren't Rose's, but without steroids he would have been in.

Steve Howe and Gooden are not in the HOF. I don't think because guys like Giambi are reinstated they are forgiven. They served whatever sentence or punishment they were given. They are not in the HOF either.

But, NO PROVEN GAMBLER IS IN THE HOF. Shoeless Joe is dead and they won't let him in. His numbers are better than Rose in many categories, and he is serving a lifetime plus deathtime sentence for gambling. Drunks are in, drugies are in, gamblers aren't.

And some prisoners and some ballplayers do serve the lifetime sentince. Just because some don't doesn't mean no one should.

Ahhhh I think Mr. Howe was simply suspended for most of his problems not given more than one lifetime ban and I think won his appeal to overturn that. I do not think Doc was ever banned for life from baseball although he did live the highlife now and again. Neither belongs in the Hall of Fame. Keep Pete out because he admitted gambling on baseball and thus wrecked the integrity of the game.

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
No matter how many times the betting vs drugs is differentiated, you ignore the reasoning. Brickhouse explained it, yet the logic is ignored.

By the way, no known steroid users have been let in to the HOF. Where is Mark McGuire? His numbers aren't Rose's, but without steroids he would have been in.

Steve Howe and Gooden are not in the HOF. I don't think because guys like Giambi are reinstated they are forgiven. They served whatever sentence or punishment they were given. They are not in the HOF either.

But, NO PROVEN GAMBLER IS IN THE HOF. Shoeless Joe is dead and they won't let him in. His numbers are better than Rose in many categories, and he is serving a lifetime plus deathtime sentence for gambling. Drunks are in, drugies are in, gamblers aren't.

And some prisoners and some ballplayers do serve the lifetime sentince. Just because some don't doesn't mean no one should.

bbd1954 - In my opinion, you are comparing apples to oranges which is why I am not following your reasoning with respect to the gambling issue. Joe Jackson was involved in a conspiracy to throw a World Series during his playing days. Thus, his misconduct is directly attached to his playing career which is certainly grounds for exclusion from the Hall.

In contrast, Pete Rose has never been accused of, nor admitted to, betting on baseball as a player. Should he have done so, I would agree with you 100%. However, that simply is not the case.

Thus, the remaining question is whether Rose should be banned from the Hall for a sin that he committed after his playing career ended...a playing career that clearly warrants induction. While you may not draw any distinction between Rose and Jackson, I do...and that's where we differ.

Bravescoach, your arguments are both logical and factual.

From Wikipedia--Read about "lifetime" bans.

"Over the course of his 17-year career, Howe would be suspended 7 times!

In 1992 Howe became the second player to be banned from baseball for LIFE because of substance abuse (the first was Ferguson Jenkins, who was also reinstated). Howe successfully appealed the lifetime ban and was re-signed by the Yankees."

Now, I don't remember Fergie's ban, just that he was arrested at the Canadian border with a little weed. His lifetime ban couldn't have lasted too long.

Bud Selig, get your head out of the sand and examine all that has happened since, and stop acting like a martyr!

My point about the other lifetime bans is that these players were allowed to be part of baseball again, not that they are or aren't in the HOF. Bud Selig or any other commissioner is not making the decision as to whether or not Rose becomes a member of the Hall. The decision would only be to make him eligible to be voted in. It's still up to the writers and othe Hall members as to whether he is in or not once he is eligible.

Of course. But, I wouldn't BET against him being elected once reinstated. With Hank Aaron, Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt and others speaking out in his behalf, I think he'd get his 75%.

quote:

Regardless, in my opinion, had Bart Giamatti known at the time what was in MLB's future, I doubt that a lifetime ban would have been forthcoming...maybe a suspension along the lines of the present day penalty for drug offenders. MLB has foregiven the recent likes of Giambi, Pettitte, Manny, and A-Rod (like it or not) for crimes no less severe than that of Rose...high time to extend him the same compassion and courtesy...he's been punished enough

Although we can all talk about how Pete Rose's "crime" was not as bad as the those by the players who use steroids we must remember one thing. Gambling related issues almost ruined the game of baseball due to the 1919 scandal. For that reason, I feel that any gambling related infraction will always be delt with more harshly than other infractions. He was a manager when he was making the bets, so he was not out of the game.

The reason for having to harshly deal with this, even when he only made bets for the Reds to win, is that he is the manager and he did have control of the outcome of the game. As Brickhouse stated, just because he bet for his team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport.

We must also remember that he was in deep debt to some of the people that he was laying the bets with. Say for instance that the Reds did make the playoffs. We then have the possiblity of 1919 all over again. The only difference is that this time the game being thrown would be being controlled by the manager, not the players. MLB will do everything in it's power to make sure that this never happens again by making and, in my opinion, never removing lifetime bans for gambling related infractions.

There is no question that Pete Rose is one of the best baseball players of all times, not many people would argue that. His not being in the Hall of Fame does not alter this fact, it only means that he is not being "officially" honored for his great career as a player.

quote:

Originally posted by soxnole:
Tuzi....I lived in Boston during Jim Rice's tenure.

His close relationship with Fred Lynn served as an example to other players still working out their own peccadillo's and to the small but loud racially abhorent Boston so called "fans".

He is a great guy with good personal skills that tells it like it is, was always accessible to fans but got tired of the sissy sportswriters and stopped talking to them. For this he was villified in the press.

I'll never forget the kid that was hit with a line drive on national TV fracturing his skull and splattering blood all over several seats at Fenway. Rice bolted from the dugout to rush him into the training room which according to all reports saved his life. He then proceeded to leave the ballpark being chased by sportswriter's for a quote. They didn't get one. Tom Keane, the boy's father later credited Rice with saving the boy's life.

So, the next day, the incident received NO PRESS! Rice could have cared less about that but it's another example of what happens when you don't kiss the 3rd column's posterior.

Tuzi, I alway's respect your opinion but this time I think you may have been unduly influenced by the runts that couldn't play the game!

There is absolutely no way he should be compared to Bonds.

Fair enough Soxnole.

Gambling can be an addiction. Seems like Pete was definately addicted. Was there an EAP program available to him where he could pick up the phone and get some private help for crying out loud?

quote:

Originally posted by Hopperhop:

quote:

Regardless, in my opinion, had Bart Giamatti known at the time what was in MLB's future, I doubt that a lifetime ban would have been forthcoming...maybe a suspension along the lines of the present day penalty for drug offenders. MLB has foregiven the recent likes of Giambi, Pettitte, Manny, and A-Rod (like it or not) for crimes no less severe than that of Rose...high time to extend him the same compassion and courtesy...he's been punished enough

Although we can all talk about how Pete Rose's "crime" was not as bad as the those by the players who use steroids we must remember one thing. Gambling related issues almost ruined the game of baseball due to the 1919 scandal. For that reason, I feel that any gambling related infraction will always be delt with more harshly than other infractions. He was a manager when he was making the bets, so he was not out of the game.

The reason for having to harshly deal with this, even when he only made bets for the Reds to win, is that he is the manager and he did have control of the outcome of the game. As Brickhouse stated, just because he bet for his team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport.

We must also remember that he was in deep debt to some of the people that he was laying the bets with. Say for instance that the Reds did make the playoffs. We then have the possiblity of 1919 all over again. The only difference is that this time the game being thrown would be being controlled by the manager, not the players. MLB will do everything in it's power to make sure that this never happens again by making and, in my opinion, never removing lifetime bans for gambling related infractions.

There is no question that Pete Rose is one of the best baseball players of all times, not many people would argue that. His not being in the Hall of Fame does not alter this fact, it only means that he is not being "officially" honored for his great career as a player.

First of all, over the past century, the only Congressional hearings I recall dealt with the issue of steroids in baseball. Thus, I would contend that the rampant use of steroids and PEDs have posed a greater threat to major league baseball than gambling.

Second, I don't know of any manager at the major league level that had ultimate control over the outcome of a game. Maybe on the losing end, but never on the winning end.

Third, your "Say for instance that..." is purely hypothetical and unsupported by fact which I would like to stick to. Once agian, Rose was never accused of throwing anything. Let's keep the opinions on point whether we agree on them or not.

"Sugar poops, is there an EAP program listed on the back of my insurance card? I gotta get control of this gambling thing."

"Hold on Petey let me check. Yep, the number is 1800555BART"

"Thanks sugar poops. hmm hmm hmm hmm"

"You've reached the MLBPA/MLB EAP progam. Please hold for the next available temporary addiction specialist trainee."

"Hmm hmm hmm hmm"

"Hello this is Marta Gaga your temporary addiction specialist trainee assigned to your groups insurance plan. Your plan only covers gambling addiction. If your addicted to anything else, we're happy for you! May I have your name please?"

"Ya Marta this is Pete Rose. Marta can you speak a little louder you sound a million miles away. I can barely hear you sweetheart."

"I'm sorry Mr. Rose I am located in New Dehli. I'll try to speak a little louder. Mr. Rose, from the following list what are you gambling the most on: dogs, ponies, team sports or other?

"Marta, the pinewood derbies races and um the team sports are just killing me."

"We'll I won't be able to help you with the pinewood derbies, he...he...; but the team sports are my speciality. Mr. Rose from the following list what professional team sports do you bet on: baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball or baseball?"

"Ya Marta, I can barely hear you. Where is New Dehli? Anyways, I bet on baseball."

"Mr. Rose, I'm going to put you on hold for 15s. I gotta go potty. Please hold ......."

"Hmm hmm hmm. Boy she must of really had to go! Hmm hmm hmm."

"Nadeem, please run a tap on line 6 and notify the commissioner's office."

"Hello Mr. Rose. Sorry I kept you waiting. Can you explain a little more in detail your betting on baseball."

"Yea Marta, I'm getting killed betting on the CUBS! They never win!"

"Mr. Rose, even us New Dehlians a million miles away from you know that the CUBS S U C K! Just pick another team and you'll be fine."

"Yea, oh yea! Why didn't I think of that! I'll come off the CUBS for a little while and see how things shake out. I'm tired of losin and paying juice too."

"Mr. Rose, whats juice?"

"Never mind Marta, thanks for your help and have a good day."

"Its night over here in New Dehli Mr. Rose. Just remember that the CUBS S U C K!"

"Yea, I guess the CUBS really do S U C K!"



Gosh, this is fun.

quote:

Third, your "Say for instance that..." is purely hypothetical and unsupported by fact which I would like to stick to. Once agian, Rose was never accused of throwing anything. Let's keep the opinions on point whether we agree on them or not.

OK, as long as you just want to stick to the facts. Pete Rose signed a paper agreeing to his permanent ineligibility from the game of baseball.
If he did this, why should he be allowed into baseball's Hall of Fame?

quote:

Originally posted by Hopperhop:

quote:

Third, your "Say for instance that..." is purely hypothetical and unsupported by fact which I would like to stick to. Once agian, Rose was never accused of throwing anything. Let's keep the opinions on point whether we agree on them or not.

OK, as long as you just want to stick to the facts. Pete Rose signed a paper agreeing to his permanent ineligibility from the game of baseball.
If he did this, why should he be allowed into baseball's Hall of Fame?

Hop...fair question. The document Rose signed was basically a negotiated settlement between himself, Bart Giamatti, and Major League Baseball.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/p_rosea.shtml

As you can see, both sides made concessions which is common for these types of agreements. In short, I don't believe that either side wished to drag this through formal proceedings and, instead, arrived at a mutually acceptable resolution. With that said, and to answer your question, I'll first highlight a few of the more pertinent provisions:

"Peter Edward Rose will conclude these proceedings before the Commissioner without a hearing and the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game."

-In a court of law, we refer to this as a "stipulation of facts" which is not an admission of guilt but a method of resolving a matter in a compromised manner. In fact, this was more clearly spelled out in a subsequent provision:

"c. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game."

Thus, on the face of this document which Rose signed, there is nothing to remotely indicate that he was signing away his future HOF consideration. I have to believe that Rose was under that impression as well and, as such, I place little or no relevance in his signature as it pertains to a HOF induction.

How can anyone not love Bart Giamatti? He fathered actor Paul Giamatta, IMO one of the best actors of our time: John Adams in John Adams, Kenny "Pig Vomit" Rushton from Howard Stern, many other great roles.

"Stern just broke my nose! Stern just broke my nose! Howard you ****** ******!"

Bravescoach, you are stubborn on this one. I know parents of kids that have played for you, and by all accounts you are a great guy, great coach, and a positve example. So while I give up on explaining the gambling thing to you, which Brickhouse and Hop have explained well, I want to respectfully take issue with another of your statements form the first post on the thread.

You say, "We would all be extremely proud of our sons should they ever play the game the way Rose did". I disagree. So he hustled. He ran to first on walks. So did Walt "no neck" Williams. He was an all star at several ppositions and has the most hits in history. He also was a poor sport. Spiking balls, injuring guys in exhibition games and being an all around arrogent ***. He has 4,400 plus major league hits more than my son, but my son is liked and respected by his team mates and the opposition players. He respects the game and plays it with class. As proud as I am with the man and player he is, if he changed and started playing like Rose, I would be disappointed.

I remember watching the Big Red Machine. I liked and respected Johnny Bench. But, Rose was always a guy I rooted against. Like Pierzinski, he played with an edge. I know they say certain players are guys you hate on the other team and lovew on yours. I don't think that is true with Rose. He was a creep on and off the field. Not an example of a class act or a great sportsman and not a guy I would want my kid to emulate, regardles of his talent and hustle. There are others who hustle and have talent that are much greater examples for kids, if baseball players are indeed who you want kids to look up to. That is a whole other discussion.

Maybe Pete Rose studied under Ty Cobb......one of the most hated ball players of his time. Cobb was a bit smarter and perhaps only gambled on Coke stock........

Coke stock? Please explain?

Regarding Ty Cobb and Coke stock:

His other pastime was trading stocks and bonds, increasing his immense personal wealth. Among his other holdings, Cobb was a major stockholder in the Coca-Cola Corporation, which by itself would have made him a wealthy man. - From Wikipedia

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
Bravescoach, you are stubborn on this one. I know parents of kids that have played for you, and by all accounts you are a great guy, great coach, and a positve example. So while I give up on explaining the gambling thing to you, which Brickhouse and Hop have explained well, I want to respectfully take issue with another of your statements form the first post on the thread.

Stubborn? Well, I can honestly say that I've been called much worse than that. However, I like to consider myself strong-willed...especially with respect to this topic. While I do respect the opinions of yourself, Brick, and Hop, none of you have effectively persuaded me off of my position. I need no further "explanation" of the "gambling thing" as I hear you loud and clear...I simply do not agree...Debate 101.

As for Pete Rose, the player, I stand by my assertion. After all, the Hall is not about choir boys but accomplishments on the field of play. How one distinguishes the two is always open to debate. However, I think you would agree that he played the game as hard as anyone else...with some obvious indiscretions along the way.

Bravescoach, that's where I think the confusion is. You believe that this is a debate over whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. No one denies that Pete Rose's playing statistics are Hall of Fame worthy. No one also denies that there are worse people in the Hall of Fame than Pete, whether you like him or not.

The stance that Bballdad, Hop, and I are making is that if you gamble on baseball or any sport in which you are a participant, you cannot be allowed in. In that respect, our opinion does not change whether you are talking about Pete Rose or Pete LaCock.

If you are saying that is okay to let a person who was known to gamble on his sport in the HOF, you are opening the door for potentially bigger issues down the road.

quote:

Originally posted by Brickhouse:
Bravescoach, that's where I think the confusion is. You believe that this is a debate over whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. No one denies that Pete Rose's playing statistics are Hall of Fame worthy. No one also denies that there are worse people in the Hall of Fame than Pete, whether you like him or not.

The stance that Bballdad, Hop, and I are making is that if you gamble on baseball or any sport in which you are a participant, you cannot be allowed in. In that respect, our opinion does not change whether you are talking about Pete Rose or Pete LaCock.

If you are saying that is okay to let a person who was known to gamble on his sport in the HOF, you are opening the door for potentially bigger issues down the road.

Well-articulated Brick. The impasse which we have reached comes down to this...I contend that his induction should be based solely upon his playing career which is devoid of any exclusionary impropriety. Your stance is that a post-career "crime" trumps all of that...understood, and the debate rages on.

However, let's keep in mind that Fergie Jenkins was busted during his playing days for possession of cocaine, hashish, and marijuana and was still inducted into the Canadian and MLB Hall of Fames. So, I ask, where do we draw the line? Clearly, MLB has already opened the door to even bigger issues which will soon come to a head once A-Rod becomes eligible. Down the line, Rose will look like a saint compared to these modern day ballplayers.

OK, the jury is in. Bravescoach is right..Pete should be in.

Clearly, MLB has already opened the door to even bigger issues which will soon come to a head once A-Rod becomes eligible. Down the line, Rose will look like a saint compared to these modern day ballplayers.[/QUOTE]

In Major League Baseball's stance, there is no bigger issue than gambling on the sport, period.

FastballDad. Where did you get the jury is in? besides your opinion.

Let me ask you this. If OJ bet on Buffalo Bills games would he be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

quote:

Originally posted by Brickhouse:
Clearly, MLB has already opened the door to even bigger issues which will soon come to a head once A-Rod becomes eligible. Down the line, Rose will look like a saint compared to these modern day ballplayers.

In Major League Baseball's stance, there is no bigger issue than gambling on the sport, period.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe Congress would agree with that. Trust me, Brick, the HOF committee is in for one hell of a nightmare once these modern-day PED abusers become eligible for induction. Only time will tell how MBL handles a mess that they helped create (and profitted from).

To answer your question, I have no idea how the NFL would have handled that situation and to render a guess would be pure speculation on my part.

OJ was never a head coach. He was inducted as a player. Had it been proven that Pete bet on baseball while he was an active player, that is a totally different argument.

It's been pointed out, correctly, that the commish would only reinstate him in good graces with MLB. He would still have to stand for election by the writers and his peers. I find it hilarious that Gaylord Perry, the spitball king, opposes Rose's reinstatement.

I has been alleged here that no player, convicted of gambling while active has never been elected to any major HOF. FALSE!!

Paul Hornung, given an indefinte suspension in 1963 by Pete Rozelle for gambling, along with Alex Karras, was, in fact, reinstated and his bust sits proudly in the NFL HOF! It is claimed that Vince Lombardi lobbied Rozelle for his reinstatment and he played 3 or 4 more years.

Next argument?

Rosy, I was aware of that however did they wager on their own team? or a game that they had no involvement?

Also, I find it interesting that most of us, including myself, would like MLB to take a tougher stance on drug use, steroids, etc. Then, when it comes to the one issue that they do take a hard line position on, some of you are asking them to be wishy washy. Do you want them to ensure the integrity of the game or not?

Oh, come on Brick. How would I know if they gambled on their own teams or not? That matters not one iota. Gambling is gambling and in this case closely mirrors what Rose did, except that Rose was retired as a player and Paul Hornung was not!

IMO, the fact that MLB is so "wishy washy" makes their position in this case hypocritical at best, and punitive at it's worst.

We'll agree to disagree on this one Rosy. IMO, it makes a huge difference if you are wagering on a game that you have control of the outcome as opposed to just wagering on a game as a distant spectator.

I can be easily argued that one has more control over the outcome of a game as a manager than a player. The manager can put in certain personell or change strategies. all a player can do is affect his own performance. The distinction that Rose was retired as a player and therefore his gambling on the sport shouldn't count strikes me as the weakest argument of all.

Also, I don't think what football does is relavent to the baseball discussion. While someone may have said NO sports pt gamblers in the HOF, I only referred to baseball being consistent with their policies. Baseball has the history with 1919 etc. Also, the different HOF have different criteria.
The NFL puts in a certain number of players each year, baseball has much tougher standards.

Sir, the argument was put forth that no active player had been found guilty of gambling and admitted into a HOF. I tried to answer that point.

Rose only bet on his team to win. If Hornung bet on his team to win, or to lose, it is still gambling and broke the same league rule and resulted in a ban. Hypothetically, if Hornung was found to have bet against the Packers in a game, would he be perceived to be more guilty than Rose, who only bet that his team would win? I argue that it is the same violation and should be punished the same.

Lastly, it is Pete's supporters among retired players that first drew the distinction that as an active player he was never accused of betting. They perceive that there is a difference, and I happen to agree. That's it.

Hourning did not bet against the Packers. There is a big difference. If you bet ON your team, you try as hard as you can to win, which you should do anyway. Obviously, if you bet against your team you will ot give maximum effort. I douby Hourning or Karras would have been reinstated if they bet against theri team as it would certtainly call in to question the integrity of the game itself.

I do beleive there is danger in gambling no matter who you bet on. But, just like murder, society has different degrees of guilt and punishment for different crimes.

I still think football's should not be compared to baseball JMO

Guess I'm one that thinks Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame as a player AND banned from baseball because of the gambling as a manager.

I've heard lots of arguments that he only bet on his team to win, but who really knows? Even if he only bet on his team winning, unless he bet on every game there is a problem. Not saying this ever happened, but the manager is in charge of the line up and whose pitching. He could rest someone one day if he thought that might make them more effective on the next day when he was betting. He could give his closer the day off and then bet the next day. Anyway, there are just too many possibilities. Therefore, betting on any game that he was involved in as a manager is a serious problem and shows a total disregard and lack of respect for the game.

He's still a hall of famer as a player!

Keep in mind that 1919 was about a lot more than gambling.

Baseball was a mess.

Comiskey was a rotten no good individual.

Landis was an abhorrent reactionary.

The players were treated like animals.

1919 was a precedent not worth remembering and especially not worth using as any kind of guideline.

It's 180 degrees different today.

I'm in line behind Soxnole on this.

It should be noted that Cobb and Tris Speaker were both "suspended" for their collective role in fixing games during the regular season. Landis allowed both to continue in baseball.

The documents that the Chicago Baseball Museum and Chicago History Museum recently acquired also show that Joe Jackson tried to turn the $$$ over BEFORE the 1919 series and was sent away. Both league presidents knew about the fix and did nothing to stop it.

The next person reinstated would probably be Buck Weaver since Holtzman recommended it before he passed last year.

Could 2010 be the year?

Besides being the first athlete on the wheaties box and of course being on the cover of Hustler magazine..what has Pete really done?