Pete Rose in the HOF?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Can the rumors be true? It appears Pete Rose will admit he bet on baseball and Bud Selig, in exchange will drop the lifetime ban, which will open up the hall for Pete. What a great idea, let's let all the killers out of prison if they admit their guilt. This is yet another awful decision from the BUD. If he going to let Pete in, then the rule against betting on the game is worthless, and Jackson, Weaver, and Cicotte and a few others should be put in too. be well brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Brian---There is a big difference between fixing a game and betting on a game. If all Rose did was bet on his own team to win then I have no problem letting him in to the HOF. Besides, at the end of the day I don't think that a player's election to the HOF should be based on his character, simply on his playing ability. If it were the former then there can be a strong arguement made for melting down the busts of Cobb, Anson, Hornsby and maybe even Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...assuming the rumors are true. If baseball has decided that 13 years of banishment is enough, then let him in - period. But if baseball feels they need to publicly humiliate him then just skip it altogether and don't let him in. This is like a grade-school argument and if Selig pulls it off as planned, it will be yet another embarassment to baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

<<If all Rose did was bet on his own team to win then I have no problem letting him in to the HOF. Besides>>

If Rose bet on his team to win, he compromises his ability to be an effective manager. He may keep his star pitcher in longer than he should (in order to win the bet), with the potential of blowing out that pitcher's arm, or risking any variety of injuries to players on his team.

It is one thing to play to win over the course of a season. It is another to potentially manager a game in an "all-or-nothing" attitude whereby your managerial decisions may affect the difference between winning and losing tens of thousands of dollars. Manager should not have any vested [financia] interest in the outcome of the game other than his team's ultimate success over the course of a season.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

My guess is that Rose was smart enough to not jeopardize his team's success to win a bet. Can you point to any examples of when he blew out a pitcher's arm by leaving him in a game too long?

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

I cannot point to any particular instances..

<<My guess is that Rose was smart enough to not jeopardize his team's success to win a bet.>>

However, I have a hard time making the distinction between:

a) smart enough to not jeoparardize his team's success to win a bet and

b) smart enough to realize that you shouldn't bet on baseball, especially on the team that you are managing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Ever play in a softball game when you bet on the outcome? I have lots of times. Do you think that is wrong?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

so it's impossible for him to tell if Rose made any managerial decisions because of betting. But if you want to argue this point, unless Rose can be considered to have performed as a manager better than any manager in history, it is always possible that his "sub-perfection" performance was due in part to implementing decisions influenced by the bets he had placed. And yes, some of those decisions may have resulted in player injuries (possibly very minor) that would not otherwise have ocurred.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Fair enough Scott. If Rose managed for ten years and never won a game he is still a HOFer based on his playing days.
Actually gambling in sports is a really interesting topic for debate. My pet peeve is the way the NFL handles things. Their public position is that they are antigambling. For that reason they force teams to disclose injury information so there is no unfair advantage out there that people could turn into a gambling profit. However, what they effectively do, which I believe is planned on the league's part, is to make people comfortable that there is a level playing field for betting so that it is "safe" to bet. My guess is that there would be much less betting if this readily available information was taken away.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I definitely put him in the HOF, regardless of his gambling. There are plenty of despicable personalities in the HOF and he would just be another.

I didn't like Rose long before the gambling thing came out - he has character flaws that extend beyond a gambling problem. In '73, I went to a Cincinnati/Houston game and my 7-yr old brother asked Rose to sign a ball, as did several other kids. Rose said he would put his suit in the bus and come right back out. He went to the back of the bus, sat down, and smiled out the window at the kids. Later, as player-manager of the Reds, Cincinnati came to Denver to player their AAA team, the Zephyrs. Rose refused to play, despite loads of cheers and encouragement. We finally started booing him and you could tell that the players on both teams were a bit upset by the whole thing. The gambling thing came out shortly thereafter and I wasn't the least surprised. Still, he goes in the HOF in my opinion, and shouldn't be made to admit what everyone already knows...that he was a great baseball player, a gambler, and a liar.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

In the mid-1990s I took my daughter with me to a card show that Pete Rose was at. We were in line to get his autograph and when our turn came he saw my daughter and said he had a daughter about the same age. He stopped everything, went to his bag, and got out pictures of his daughter to show mine. It was one of the nicest, most personal, things I have ever seen an athlete do at a card show. Based on that I will always be a Pete Rose fan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

Jay,

I was a seller at a card show in which Kenny "The Snake" Stabler was a signer. After the signing, he was standing up there talking with another guy. My table was slow so I had a friend watch my table and went up just to say hello. The Snake did something that no other celebrity ever did to me under the same circumstances, he noticed my name tag (sellers needed to wear one) and actually addressed me by name. Then he went on for 5-10 minutes just chatting with me about football; the Steelers, himself, Ken Anderson, Earl Campbell(who was also there) just as if I was a long-lost buddy of his.

With all of the negative comments that people make about athletes signing for money and being total jerks, I always like to relay this story because it does show that when a man is brought up to be a gentleman, he stays that way even despite his celebrity status.

Sincerely,

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom

about 88 miles from Cincinnati in Louisville, the Reds have ALWAYS been my favorite (until Marge Schott f'ed up the whole apple cart, but another story for another day). Went to MANY games when I was a kid from mid 1970's till late 1980's. Still go to some occasionally.

Rose is a hall of famer based on his playing abilities. I agree with the sentiment that many of the current hofer's would be not in if piety was what was being looked at. Gambling, Alcohol, associations with Casinos, Killing someone and many more things are on the docket for guys in Cooperstown now, so I agree with Jay that you'd have to throw out a few if you didn't allow Rose in.

I think what Selig and BB will do, is basically make Rose admit that he bet on baseball, not specifically his team though. If they made him admit that, it might make it more difficult for him to get into HOF. While there's many that don't have any doubt that he bet on the Reds, I haven't seen the final evidence from John Dowd that he did for sure although Dowd says he has it.

I also agree with Scott.....13 years out of the game. If that isn't punishment enough, don't tack another 1-2 years or 6 months or whatever on to the punishment. Just reinstate him. Let the BB writers decide his fate. If they elect him right away, then the 13 years was enough. it might take years to elect him as there are many 'purists' who still hold out they won't vote for him.

Rose used to come to Louisville to the Paul Hornung show yearly (which, ironically enough was held in the Caesar's Riverboat Casino over in Indiana). He was ALWAYS willing to sign for the guests at the show. He would sign a couple of items each time through the line and I would routinely get 8-10 things signed on these visits. Only thing he refused to sign was bats. Saw him sign copys of the Dowd report, Bart Giamatti balls (for me......). He was always polite to the crowd and very candid about his chances to get into the hall of fame. Now......on his choice of clothing, purple slacks might be a little off, but that shouldn't keep him out of the hall...........

Not many guys slide into first base anymore.......few, if any guys, play the game with the zeal that Rose did. Few EVER played the game the way he played it. So, for that, and his abilities and his on field records, he has to go..........

We can start another thread about Joe.............

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom

and not to answer my own posts like some people do, but I'd single out Namath........I had only two times that I've met him and one was at a show on Long Island. Because of his bad knees, he had to stand the whole time and he took the time to sign everything and had no problems with personalizing and took pictures with anyone and everyone who wanted to. Maybe it was because it was New York, maybe not. He also came to the Paul Hornung show in Louisville and he signed forever for people, even after the show was completed taping. He was very candid with the crowd, and unlike many of Paul's other guests, he took some questions from the crowd afterwards and was very generous with everyone.......another good guy........

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

since I could go on about this for days. Pete Rose should be banned for life. There is one golden rule in baseball, it's posted for all to see and has been for decades--thou shall not bet on baseball. The rule is there for a reason, since its violation damages the integrity of the game itself. Whereas baseball is apparently willing to overlook the other sins and bad acts of its participants, it does not and should not tolerate those who strike at its very core.

So let's look at this pinhead. He bets on baseball at a voracious rate, including games involving his own team. He denies it for some umpteen years now, and claims those investigating him are only out to further their own agendas. He never admits anything, much less express contrition. Now, he apparently is willing to admit he bet on baseball, even maybe (although I have not heard this confirmed) that he is sorry. However, he is willing to go this far only in exchange for some assurance that he can get into the Hall. What a joke.

Read the Dowd report, if only to see the amount of time Rose spent wagering. To suggest his managerial abilities and loyalties weren't compromised is to look at life through rose-colored glasses (sorry). In addition ot the injury points raised by others, do you wonder if the closer was ever held back to tommorrow's, wagered game? If the AAA kid was called up so that another starter could get an extra day's rest for tomorrow's, wagered game? If the rotation was juggled to give Petey a distinct advantage in one game (and perhaps only one) of a four game series? Now, to suggest that this is all speculation that must be proved is to ignore why the anti-betting rule is there in the first place.

Finally, look at and consider the opinions of those already in the Hall. Many if not most prefer that Pete not be admitted as a result of his gambling on baseball. Isn't that significant?

I am fairly certain that Bud Selig will do the wrong thing and let Rose back into baseball. Selig has proven time and again to be the most miserable commisssioner in baseball history, but that's a topic for another thread.
Be well..................Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

1) I think Rose should be allowed in the Hall of Fame after he admits and apoloizes for betting on baseball. I also think O.J. Simpson, Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson belong in the Hall of Fame.

2) I think that banning all betting by managers or players is a reasonable and prudent rule. I support it 100 percent.

Realize that Roses' betting habbits were used as important information by the gambling community. He would place a bet when he was cofident that his team would win (depending on who was pitching), and would not place a bet when he wasn't cofident. Many in the gambling community were aware of this pattern, and used the information to their benifit. I think this is exactly the type of relationship that MLB hoped to avoid when insituting the rule.

I think that it would be a PR disaster if players and managers could be allowed to bet on baseball games. Is anyone trying to tell me that players calling their bookies on their cellpohones before World Series games is a desirable situation? Are you telling me their wouldn't be a media swirl, next time Pedro Martinez skips a game due to a 'sore arm'? Or when Omar Visquel bobbles a grounder in the bottom of the ninth? Or when Joe Torre sits a Derek Jeter due to 'disclipanary reasons'?

Pandora should be left in her box.

3) Pete Rose obviously knew that betting on games was wrong and and a horrible thing to do. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been denying it for the last 13 years.

4) Rose had no one to blame but himself.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

David--So cutting through all that you are saying is the problem that the manager is betting on a particular game or that the information that he bet and how he bet is not uniformly distributed in the marketplace? Again, I don't condone betting against your team. However, I have no problem if Joe Torre bets on the Yankees to win as long as the bet is adequately disclosed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

And I think O. J. Simpson should be executed but his bust should remain in Canton.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...was he getting paid? just wondering.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

because their every move is scrutinized by the public, so it doesn't surprise me that certain players have their bad moments. I just felt that lying to a bunch of little kids and then looking out the window and gloating was a bit much - actually, it horrified me. But that's just me.

I have always heard that Steve Carlton was quite a jerk when it came to the media and the public, but my experience with him was just the opposite - he signed a ball for me, then I asked him to sign a program for my little brother who couldn't make the game, and he didn't hesitate.

Here's one that might surprise you - one of my most pleasant athlete interractions was with a young Bobby Valentine of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Valentine was one of the happiest most interractive ball-players I've ever met - he was always responding to the crowd with a big smile. But you never know, maybe that was the day he found out he was being traded to the Angels.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankon

First, why there is an assumption that Rose only bet on his teams? From what I understand, there is evidence suggesting that he bet against his team.

I don't think it is a practical or desirable situation for MLB to have a rule that managers can bet, but only for their teams. How is this going to be enforced? "Okay, managers, you can set up your bookie accounts, but make sure you only bet on your team. At the end of each month send in your receipts and a notrized letter from your Guido, so we double check your bets." I just don't see how Managers setting up accounts with bookies and regularly placing bets on games is desirable for the sport? My opinion is that it would be a mess, if only from a PR standpoint.

Lastly, it's a moot argument. MLB is not going to allow Managers to bet.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Harmon Killebrew is always a class act. I rememebr back in 1987 I had him sign a wirephoto of him and Cal Emer, the Twins manager at the time. He asked if I would be interested selling it to him since he didn't have any pics of him and Emer together. I said no, and kept the picture for myself. When I sold off my collection, I kept this one photo to him if he was ever at a show near me.

He finally appeared in SF again 1992. I waited in line and gave him the picture. He asked if wanted a signed ball or anything for it. I said no, the memories of your playing days are enough. And the guy actually started to tear up. We chatted for a bit and the other peole there were amazed that would just give something to a player.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Chapter XVI discusses gambling.

"...for the men who organized the National League were aware that gambling and Base Ball must be divorced. The union had never been legitimate. It had been forced upon the game by the weakness of its parents and the aggressiveness of its adventurous wooer. The alliance was an unholy one, and its offspring were bastards, all..."

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Yes, he was getting paid. However, there are alot of guys who, despite getting paid, still act like jerks. Reggie Jackson is one who quickly comes to mind. Ralph Terry was another.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

The Hall of Fame is strictly based on what you did on the field. If you eliminated all the weasels, jackasses and shady characters, there would be a lot of guys not in the HOF, including probably a quarter to a third of the guys who played in the Golden Age of baseball.
Rose is a jerk and I never liked him but give the devil his due. If you let in abrasive psychos like Ty Cobb, how can you not let Rose in. And don't give me the tired crapola of how Cobb never bet on baseball, he was betting when he was a player and the only reason he and Speaker and Joe Wood weren't booted out of baseball was because Kenesaw Mountain Landis had no balls when it came to punishing stars, only the ignorant (Jackson), the knowing but not acting (Weaver) and the inncoent (Kauf).

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Bob, it's not a one-or-the-other situation for me. I think Rose derserves to be in the Hall of Fame AND I think gambling should be banned from baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

you as well as anyone should know better. The rule has been clear and has been posted for 50 years, along with a statement of its punishment. If you don't like the rule, don't play, or take action to have the rule changed.

As a lawyer, what's your argument on Pete's behalf?-- sorry your honor, we know what the rule says, we know that its been posted and that Pete would have seen it virtually every day for more than 20 years throughout his career, we know that it specifically describes the penalty and yes he violated it repeatedly, but ya know what, we always thought that rule was unfair, and lifetime shouldn't mean lifetime, and there's evidence others bet on baseball back in the 'teens, and why can't we just get along?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jue

...

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

In case you're interested, here's the Dowd report:
http://dowdreport.com/

Also, here's a link to an interesting editorial about Rose and the level of critical thinking in this country:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1475194.html

Finally, if you don't want to read that article, here's the rule as quoted therein:
Rule 21(d):

BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

As a lawyer, what's your argument on Pete's behalf?-- >

14th Amendment equal protection and due process with a little selective enforcement thrown in.
In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan's Chief Executioner in The Mikado "Let the punishment fit the crime." He has been punished enough, let him in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

How can you say that he has been punished enough if he agreed to a lifetime ban? It would be different if he had not part in that, but if he was of sound mind at the time, and he willingly and of his own volition signed a lifetime ban from baseball -- how can you say the punishment does not fit the crime? He himself agreed to it 13 years ago! What has changed?

[Archive]

Posted By: nolemmings (Todd)

<14th Amendment equal protection and due process with a little selective enforcement thrown in.
In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan's Chief Executioner in The Mikado "Let the punishment fit the crime." He has been punished enough, let him in.>
Due process? He was afforded an opportunity to present his case and show that he didn't do it. His response--enter a deal with the Commissioner whereby he agrees to a lifeftime ban,i.e. quash the process.
Due process because there was no notice of the offense or its consequences? Already covered.

14th Amendment equal protection? What class or category of person is being treated disparately here?

Selective enforcement? Show me the evidence of those who went unpunished after the rule was written and posted in baseball clubhouses. If anything, those who were punished before there was an edict, e.g. the eight men out, would have some sort of ex post facto argument, but not so here.

Your best argument is your last one, kind of an 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment argument. I disagree, but do believe that to be the subject of fair debate. Tell me though, when in your opinion was Rose "punished enough"- several years ago, just now, from the outset?

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Selective enforcement? Show me the evidence of those who went unpunished after the rule was written and posted in baseball clubhouses. If anything, those who were punished before there was an edict, e.g. the eight men out, would have some sort of ex post facto argument, but not so here.>

First, how about an analogy: Alex Karras and Paul Hornung bet on pro football games while they were still playing and they received a slap on the wrist, a one year ban, and were welcomed back with open arms. Both are in the HOF. Rose's punishment has been extreme and out of proportion wih what it is alleged he has done.
Next, I believe that Cobb, Speaker and Wood were all totally aware of what happened in 1919 with the Black Sox, yet placed bets on baseball games. That has been well chronicled and I won't waste the bandwidth to rehash it. Cobb used his "star position" to effectively blackmail Landis in to taking no action. If that wasn't selective enforcement, what was?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Monsta

if we all got a citation every time we broke the speed limit. Buuuuutttttttt officer, I was just.......

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McMenemy

Pete Rose may have been a great ball player, however, he does not belong in the Baseball Hall of Fame! That HONOR should be reserved only for great players that respected the integrity of the game. LET THE LIFETIME BAN STAND. Are there others that should not have been enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Absolutely.

I, for one, am tired of the athletes that think they are bigger than the GAMES they play. Whether they like it or not they are ROLE MODELS for the youth of America...or, at least, they should be!

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Monsta

I don't think they are. So maybe banished from MLB but not the HOF?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Rose stays out. He bet on baseball while active in the game AND was caught before being elected to the HOF AND agreed to a lifetime ban. If he really thought that lifetime meant something else, he is a fool. Big distinction between that and the other situations under discussion.

Timing of revelation and election is key. No one seriously suggests that Speaker and Cobb should be tossed from the HOF today, yet they undeniably fixed a game. They denied everything at the time and the ex-player accusing them refused to show before Landis and testify. Landis did not have the resources to investigate the issue as we could today, so Landis acquitted them and ordered the AL to reinstate them. Read "Baseball As I Have Known It" by Fred Lieb, which has a great account of the whole incident. If the revelations about Cobb and Speaker's game fixing came out today before they were elected and an investigator like Dowd was assigned to the case, they'd be ruled ineligible, period, just like Rose, and I would not have a damned bit of sympathy for them.

The "law" of baseball is clear: get caught betting on baseball while involved in the game and lose your eligibility.

All that being said, I strongly believe that off the field antics and issues separate from baseball are not a basis for excluding a player from the HOF. For example, if they were becoming eligible today, revelations about Speaker, Hornsby and Hartnett being KKK members would certainly be tossed around as reasons to exclude them. I would disagree with that because the HOF membership is based on baseball achievements, not on life achievements. Babe Ruth was a drunken whoremonger, Mickey Mantle was a drunk and Joe DiMaggio was a venal, nasty bastard. Willie Mays is probably the surliest, most unpleasant ex-player I've ever had the misfortune of meeting. Does that make it right for Bud to declare them ineligible? No, and it should not. Let the voters decide. I am so tired of people demonizing players for behavior that is unrelated to the sport. Put a horse's ass into the hall if he played well enough to merit it and the voters care to let him in, and let the fans learn from that person's life. I think people are a little more adult and a little more sophisticated than we give them credit for being, and would be able to explain to little Jimmy that Rogers Hornsby was a racist pig in life but a hell of a hitter, or that Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic.

As for signers, kudos to Hank Aaron. I went to a show some years ago where he had a terrible time getting there with multiple flight problems, yet he stayed late to sign everything anyone wanted and was courteous and talkative with the fans the whole time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

I am not by any means an expert about the goings on in baseball during the first quarter of last century, so I'd like to know about these incidents concerning Cobb and Speaker. Please provide some sources.

From what I have read, the incident concerning Cobb, Speaker and Wood arose out of a game played in September, 1919, on which Dutch Leonard claimed the others had wagered. The players were cleared when Leonard, who apparently waited until November,1926 to come forward, refused to provide testimony. If true, then consider the following:

1. The game was played before the Black Sox scandal.
2. The game was played before Landis was even commissioner, and before his pronouncements on gambling were instituted.
3. The allegations were made in late 1926, when Cobb was 40 and Speaker 38, each with only two years of playing left. What particular star power did they wield then, particuarly when Ruth and the Yankee juggernaut were the talk of baseball?

So, for gambling events that took place after 1919, what players/managers/oweners went unpunished?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Yes, but what if he bet on his team to LOSE? Throwing games isn't out of the question, he lied before.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Some of you guys need to take a walk in the fresh air and clear your heads. Baseball is a sport, a recreation, a form of entertainment. It is not life and death. The HOF is a place where there are exhibits showing who the greatest baseball players were--the best hitters, the best pitchers, the best fielders, NOT THE BEST PEOPLE. Pete Rose was one of the greatest players ever to play the game and he deserves to be there, period. His bat is already there, his spikes are already there---they didn't do anything without Pete to move them.
You know what, I don't care if Rose bet on a game because I know that given the competitor that Pete is he would never bet against his own team. Would he do something to endanger his team's chances of success---absolutely not---he was too much of a competitor. Also, I think the NFL example is relevant. Baseball sometimes tries to take a hollier than thou attitude which is a bunch of bull.
By the way I'll bet anyone $50 that he doesn't get in next year.

[Archive]

Posted By: RC_McKenzie

Rose should go into the HOF as a player. He should have a disclaimer on his plaque that reads.."not a hall of fame manager"

Even if he never bet one thin dime, he ragged his bullpen more than any manager since Tommy Lasorda.

[Archive]

Posted By: rod

Last summer, I took some kids to Cooperstown .They don't know who most of the enshrinees are but as we stood in front of Hack Wilson , I explained some of his great stats and their eyes lit up. Nearby ,two gentlemen made a comment "Yeah but too bad he was a big drunk when he played", The kids immediatly lost interest. Maybe Wilson doesn't even belong there but after awhile you get tired of making excuses for these guys . "Yeah, old pete was a real jerk, but what a great player!"Kids get real confused by all these double messages.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Acceptable player lifestyles certainly varied from generation to generation. As some board posters have alluded to, Landis was lenient with Speaker and Cobb, even though (and this is true) Cobb admitted to being involved in the betting on the game. But the problem was more pervasive - during Cobb's time it was accepted for teams that had their position in the standing nailed down, to take a little cash to lose a game and help out another team - moving up in the standings could mean bonuses. Landis had clamped down on the Black Sox because that's exactly what he was hired to do - the Sox went too far and gave baseball a major black eye. Landis was brought in to clean up with an iron fist, which he did. Gamblers had a major part in baseball back in the 1800's, and the game was not considered a respectable profession even as late as the 1920's. You can read some great stories about it in "The Glory of Their Times" and I also encourage you to get the cd's (amazing listening to these guys).

By the 1950's it was certainly a cleaner game, and perhaps the kids even expected more out of the players in terms of "role model" behavior, but if you had the potential to go to college and land a job as a chemical engineer, you certainly would forego taking a shot at the ML's unless you were something phenomenal (and I'm glad my Dad made that decision!).

By the time Pete Rose got caught, the days of baseball players betting on games being acceptable, was long gone. Drunkenness has always been acceptable among baseball players though, so when Pete had the urge to bet perhaps he should have called Billy Martin instead.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie, not "Jue"

...

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick

Living in Las Vegas, being an avid sports bettor and baseball fan I have a unique perspective.

I do not believe Rose bet against the Reds.There is more than just the side(which team wins) one can bet on. You can also bet on the total score of a game or the margin of victory. He could still win the game and win his bet if he wanted to. Is this OK? I think it takes away from the integrity of the game.

Having lived here for many years I have seen many a man blur the line between right and wrong to continue gambling. I think Rose sold his sole and he should have to pay the price.

PS: Superbowl Prediction

Bucc's 17
Raiders 9

Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

This point may have already been made in this thread; I confess to not having read every entry.

Someone more perceptive than I suggested that the conundrum in the Rose case stems from the fallacy that banishment from the Hall and banishment from baseball are inextricably intertwined. A solution worth debating is accepting Rose into the Hall for his baseball achievements while continuing to prevent him from participation in organized Major League activities on grounds of charachter as a result of his gambling activities (as complicated by his almost certain lying on the subject).

[Archive]

Posted By: ty_cobb

Tell me, what qualifies Selig or any of the owners
involved in fraud to sit in judgement of Rose?
Yup, that's right, absolutely nothing, read on...

After arbitrators found they violated the anti-collusion provisions of their collective bargaining agreement following the 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons, owners settled the cases for $280 million.

Now let's see, its ok to misapropriate over
a 1/4 billion in players funds without penalty
and the issue is all hushed up.

But if you are a player, the same guys who ripped
you of the money!!! have some divine right to
crucify you for life for your failings.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Cobb bragged about killing a black man, almost killed another and beat up an armless cripple to within an inch of his life who was heckling him at a ballgame.
Betting on baseball seems to pale in comparison to that.
The bottom line as expressed above is what the guy did on the field. He is the all-time hit king, whether he had a bad hairdo, crappy attitude or bet on games after his playing days were over.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H.

He still has to get the votes (75%) and judging from this board) that might not be a foregone conclusion.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

From what I have read, the incident concerning Cobb, Speaker and Wood arose out of a game played in September, 1919, on which Dutch Leonard claimed the others had wagered. The players were cleared when Leonard, who apparently waited until November,1926 to come forward, refused to provide testimony. If true, then consider the following:

1. The game was played before the Black Sox scandal.
2. The game was played before Landis was even commissioner, and before his pronouncements on gambling were instituted.
3. The allegations were made in late 1926, when Cobb was 40 and Speaker 38, each with only two years of playing left. What particular star power did they wield then, particuarly when Ruth and the Yankee juggernaut were the talk of baseball?>

How can you on the one hand condemn the Black Sox who threw the Series in September/October 1919, before Landis took office, and yet differentiate the Cobb-Speaker-Wood fix which also took place in September 1919? The evidence against the Black Sox started surfacing in the middle of the 1920 season and the evidence against Cobb-Speaker-Wood didn't make it to Landis' desk until 6 years later, but you can't differentiate the two on a time basis as both events occured before Landis took office.
Also, there is some evidence that Cobb exerted his own particular form of blackmail to keep Landis from banishing him. True Leonard didn't appear in person but biographers have attributed that to the fear of Leonard regarding Cobb's terrible temper and well-known propensity for revenge.
As far as the Babe and the Yanks being the talk of baseball in 1926, they WERE the talk of baseball as they crashed near the cellar as the Washington Senators repeated as American league champs.