NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2004, 08:59 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: warshawlaw 

I read in the Times this am that he is going to fess up to betting on baseball games while he managed the Reds. This after 12 years of lying to everyone in earshot about his actions. Bastard broke one of the primary rules of baseball, one so profound that it is printed on the wall in every clubhouse. He should go to his grave without ever setting foot in the HOF.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-05-2004, 09:33 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Glen V

Yet F. Jenkins can pitch while on cocaine and be allowed in...

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-05-2004, 09:41 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: jay behrens

Difference is that the only person Fergie was hurting was himself. Don't know if you've ever done coke, but from personal experience, it doesn't help you throw better. Kind of like the guy the Olympic snowboarder that got popped for marijuana. Big deal. Getting stoned doesn't enhance performance.

Jay

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-05-2004, 10:27 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Wade

I agree, Rose, Shoeless Joe, they should all rot.

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-05-2004, 11:52 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: ramram

he should be let in because of his accomplishments...but...not until he's dead and gone. That way he never gets to enjoy his day in the spotlight.

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-05-2004, 11:55 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

Ted Williams was for Joe Jackson's lifetime banishment. However, he interpreted this to mean that he could (and should) be voted in after his death.

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:03 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Rhett

I agree that Pete Rose should rot. He was found to be guilty, and since that ruling was made, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!! The only new evidence is himself admitting to doing it. By allowing him to get back in you are sending the message that gambling is not all that bad of an offense. Soon we will have a Hal Chase on every team. Personally, I don't care if you gamble while a player or as a manager, to me the latter is possibly worse. If he ever is admitted back into the hall it should be mandatory that his plaque should read... GOOD player, mediocre manager, and an even bigger gambler.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-05-2004, 04:24 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Cy

Come on Rhett, he was a great player and only a mediocre gambler. He couldn't pick teams to save his life!

Cy

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-05-2004, 06:01 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

Incompetence is not an acceptable defence. Otherwise, that guy who robbed the McDonalds then went there the next morning for breakfast wouldn't be in jail.

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:39 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

I'm sorry, but a manager (and player) betting against his own team doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame ... And, pleeeeeeease, don't anyone say, "But Pete says he never bet on any of his own games. This time's he says he's being honest. In his last autobiography (Kahn) may have he lied, but this autogiography he's telling the truth."

I also notice that, in true Rose fashion, even him 'coming clean' involves him making money with a book. What a classy guy.

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-06-2004, 01:10 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

If Rose has class, the first thing he should do is appologize, not to MLB or Selig or John Doud or Roger Kahn, but to all those loyal Rose fans across the country who ardently (and may still) feel that Rose belongs in the Hall as they beleive him when he say he didn't bet on baseball.

If Rose refuses to sincerly appologize* to his loyal fans, that says more than enough about who he is and where his priorities are.

* I said sincerely, not in order to promote the sale of his autographed lined of Hall of Fame 'limited' hats on Shop at Home

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-06-2004, 03:00 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: jw

Alledgedly Joe Jackson accepted $5,000.00 (while promised much more) to blow the 1919 series. Although he did perform quite well in that series, he entered into an agreement to lose the series. I have looked over the Dowd report and have not seen any evidence that Rose ever put himself in a position where the Reds losing was profitable for himself. If I were to see evidence that Rose bet against his team, I would have no problem with the rotting. I guess that is where I draw the line. I would guess that the number of HOF players (let alone all players) that have bet someone (whether a legal bet, or not) that their team would win a game or series would be rather large. In other words, it's not the bet to win that scares me, but the bet to lose.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-06-2004, 03:21 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

Pesonally, I have little concern with the Hall of Fame, but the one thing I can't stand on this earth is insincerity (fakes and liars). Whether Hall worthy or unworthy I will let up to others, but I put Rose in the league with politician's campaign promises, fast food marketers and Ken Goldin-- which, in my view, is about as low as you can go in this world.

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-06-2004, 03:36 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

I won't go through my usual diatribe about this loser and the fact that he knew the rules, knew the punishment, and still carries on like he's the victim. Fact is, he is one of the most competitive, win-at-all-costs persons ever associated with baseball. For him to bet dozens of times on his own team and claim he didn't use inside information or otherwise tweak the lineup would be completlely out of character for him, and is as unbelievable as his prior, 15 years of steadfast denials that he bet on basebball at all. I cannot help but believe that rotations were altered, certain players given rest for certain games, more pitchers used in games that he bet (making them at least potentially less effective for the next game), etc. To suggest that this does not effect the integrity of the game is myopic at best.

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-06-2004, 03:58 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: warshawlaw

forgive my ignorance.

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-06-2004, 04:26 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: warshawlaw

Disclaimer: I am genuinely pissed because I was a big Pete Rose fan ever since I was a kid (I still have the autographed postcard I got when I was a kid; probably a clubhouse signature, but I've kept it nonetheless over the decades) and felt that he was being screwed by the baseball powers if his ban was not baseball betting related. Now that he's admitted he was lying to fans like me for 14 years, I feel the way I did when I finally got to meet the great Willie Mays and he was a prick. Kills a little more of my love for the game. They can both rot. But on to the arguments raised.

The problem I see with this approach is that it incrementalizes an unlawful act where no incrementalization is provided for and also ascribes to Rose a level of self-control that he claims he did not have, rendering the argument internally contradictory.

I do not agree with incrementalizing violations of the gambling on baseball rule. The rule says you gamble on baseball and you are out. Rose knew good and goddamned well that gambling on baseball was "illegal" under baseball laws and that the penalty was "death", and he did it anyway. Like the theme to Baretta says, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." He did it, he knew he did it, he knew what would happen if he did it, and he deserves the punishment that has been there ever since Landis excommunicated the Black Sox.

The second issue is even more compelling for me, because my late sister was a junkie. Bluntly put, if Rose is a compulsive gambler, Rose is still lying to us. By claiming that he was the victim of an addictive disease, Rose claims he had no self control. I know from firsthand experience that a true addict will lie, cheat, steal and do anything at all to sustain the habit. If Rose was truly addicted, the proposition that he bet on baseball but not on the Reds and that he did not use his position to further his addiction is ludicrous. A junkie is a junkie, regardless of the addiction, and their word is pure $**t. I have no reason to believe he is doing anything other than saying what he needs to say to seek admission to the last HOF ballot he qualifies for next year. If Rose was not an addict and had self control, then he purposefully, intentionally broke the cardinal rule of baseball law and we are back to "Baretta".

Jackson raises a more subtle point. I have long agreed that Jackson was properly excommunicated from the game--as you accurately point out, he accepted money to throw the world series. The difference with Jackson is that there was no HOF at the time of his penalization. I am not sure that extending his sentence past its original scope into an area that was not envisioned at the time is just.

Finally, there is a concept in law called the appearance of impropriety. Judges who have a potential conflict will remove themselves from a case because of the mere appearance that their decision would be tainted. Rose says he never used his position to further his betting, but we will never know because he created the appearance of impropriety by lying for all these years. I would cream him on cross-exam and argue to the jury that we cannot tell whether he is lying now, or was lying then, because the lies just keep flowing. Similarly, I do not accept the argument that Jackson must not have thrown the series because he played well, because whether he did it or not is not the point--he agreed to do it and was paid for it, raising the inference that he did it, an inference that we will never dispell.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-06-2004, 04:50 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: craig

while i kind of agree that i dont see much wrong with showing confidence in betting your team to win, there are problems that come along with it. whoever rose was placing his bets with for his team to win had an advantage over all other in the sports betting world. they would have the inside knowledge of the games that rose did not bet on. this would seem to show that rose was unsure of his team ability to be victorious in the game. while "possibly" not being profitable for rose, it surely was valuable, and profitable, knowledge for the bookie. now if rose had bet his team to win on every single game of the season that advantage would be gone and i would see no problem with that. i grew up as a huge rose fan and hate the fact that he screwed us all, his fans. but i hope that he is never enshrined in the glorious hall of fame.

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-06-2004, 07:58 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: W.M.

Rose is just a con man. For how many years now he has lied about betting on baseball to his closest friends and fans, now he decides he is going to confess his gambling sins. I find it funny that his timing coincides with not to many years left for him to be considered for the hall of fame and his new book hits the shelves. I think this is a ploy to sucker $24.95 a book from his remaining fans.

On a sad note god bless Tug McGraw.

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-06-2004, 08:55 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: leon

At this point I don't believe he should be let in given his years of lieing. I do believe in second chances (thank goodness I got one) and will never say never. With that being said I can not forget the time, a few years ago, when he was signing autographs at a show and genuinely took the time with everyone to make them feel special. I saw him take numerous pics and spend time with kids and make them smile. He joked around and was very good natured. It gave me tingles. I am in no way taking up for what he did as it was flat out wrong. It's sure a shame that the all time hit leader messed up so badly.......will make an interesting show Thursday......regards all

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-07-2004, 11:04 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Mike (18colt)

I'll preface what I'm going to say with the following: I was a huge fan of Rose during his playing days, and a huge collector of his cards. I am still a fan of Pete Rose.

Now onto my two cents. . . .

1) Someone in an early post said that Rose was banned from baseball for gambling. At least get the facts straight and don't show your ignorance. Rose was not banned for betting on baseball. Read the agreement that Rose signed. It's readily available on-line.

2) John Dowd did an amazing job compiling numerous exhibits which allegedly portray Rose as a gambler on baseball games. One question that still bugs me about the Dowd Report -- if the evidence was so concrete and airtight, and if it's so obvious that Rose bet on baseball, why didn't MLB ban Rose for gambling? If you read the report (it's really, really long), and reread it, and analyze it enough, you start finding reasons why Rose could not be banned without his own confession. The investigation against Rose in the late 1980s wasn't a criminal investigation -- MLB did not have "reasonable doubt" to worry about, so if MLB was sure Rose gambled on baseball, they could've banned him for it without worry. So why didn't they?

3) The confession by Rose that he bet on baseball -- is it real? Let's make some assumptions for a moment for the sake of this example. Let's assume that Rose has been truthful for the last 14 years about not wagering on the game. Let's assume that the Dowd Report couldn't conclusively prove that Rose bet on baseball, and that's why he wasn't banned for gambling. Rose applies for reinstatement, and gets ignored for years. He's told that he must change his ways and confess to gambling before any action will be taken by MLB. So what are Rose's options based on these assumptions? He either maintains his innocence, and never gets back into the game, or he admits guilt, so the process can move forward and he can potentially get back into baseball. For someone that loves the game of baseball as much as Rose does, what would you choose? The choice is simple -- admit guilt, and try to get back into the game. Perhaps this is what Rose is doing now.

4) This is a question -- if Rose admitted to gambling on baseball to Bud Selig in November of 2002, how did this information not leak out to the press? National security sometimes isn't this airtight.

5) Did Mike Schmidt know of Rose's alleged transgressions this past year as he lobbied the commissioner's office on Rose's behalf?

6) How would the Rose situation be different today if Bart Giamatti hadn't died days after banning Rose? Was it appropriate for Giamatti to publically comment on his opinion of Rose's innocence or guilt after banning him (he said Rose bet on baseball - if so, then why didn't he ban him for gambling as noted in an above point)?

7) Fergie Jenkins pitching with cocaine coarsing through his veins would have an adverse effect on his performance. He hurt his team that game (or games), probably costing his teams some wins. Is this better for the game than if Rose had gambled on his team to win?

8) How many home runs did Sammy Sosa hit with his corked bat? We'll never know, but if he wasn't a popular star player, would his suspension have lasted longer?

9) Players on steroids. Here's a good question -- let's say that Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron's career home run record. After his playing days, as a team's batting coach or strength & conditioning coach, MLB for whatever reason has to investigate him for potentially supplying his players with an illegal supplement that enhances performance. If during the investigation, it's found that Bonds for the last 8 seasons of his career used anabolic steroids, will anything be done concerning his record? His HOF candidacy? Will he be banned for tarnishing the image of the game?

10) Was Joe Jackson given a lifetime ban or is he permanently ineligible? If it's a lifetime ban, he should be eligible for the HOF today. If it's permanently ineligible, he currently can't get in. Plus, didn't he give the money back, played well in the WS, and got banned because he knew of the fix but didn't do anything about it (like knowing a bank robbery is going to take place, not taking part in the robbery, but still being held accountable)?

11) Separating the ban and the HOF eligibility, when Rose was banned, he was still eligible for the HOF. The HOF changed their rules after the fact. If Rose wanted to get in badly enough, he could with a legal challenge (it would cost him a lot of money and ultimately turn away most of his remaining fans, but he'd get in - and please, the lawyers out there, don't pursue this argument).

12) Final point. If you consider everything that Rose has done for the game as a player and what he means to a lot of his fans and baseball's fans, would those of you that want him "to rot" be content with the following -- Rose gets reinstated, is made eligible for the HOF, but cannot take a position where he steps onto the field during a game (no manager, no base coach, etc.)? Keep in mind that if he becomes eligible for the HOF again, there's no guarantee that the writers who vote will vote him in (and then it'll be up to the Veterans Committee, who may not ever vote him in while he's still alive).

Thanks for your time. Just remember, these are my opinions, and the questions I posed are questions. No need to jump down my throat if you disagree. Take the assumptions I made for what they are, and keep things in their context.

Have a nice day!

PS: since this is a vintage card forum, I'll ask a question -- how tough are E102 cards to find? (I've seen www.caramel-cards.com, but want more opinions)

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-07-2004, 11:41 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Eric

Mike, like you, I don't condemn Pete Rose. Glen V brought up a good point in his original response to this link, about Fergie Jenkins. Glen only hit on the surface of what many major league ball players do to hurt the integrity of the game though, which morally and effectually incriminate baseball as a whole. Pete Rose made mistakes, many mistakes. The man bet on baseball, and lied about it. However, I also believe that Rose did absolutely NOTHING that deteriorated the game, and I'm convinced that so many other major leaguers have done far worse, with absolutely no incrimination or punishment from the league. Lets put this in terms of the common sense, I think everyone should ask themselves what actions and decisions are worse in life? Is betting and lying worse than: taking drugs and admitting it (in most cases multiple times), arrest on felony charges, spousal abuse, murder, driving under the influence, trafficing drugs, felony theft, rape, etc..?

So many people in society are quick to judge and lash out viciously without attaining all measureable evidence, and not considering like events that go unpunished. Pete is no saint. He broke the rules, and is enduring the punishment he deserves. But make no mistake about it, if MLB came down on all the offenses that without doubt, certainly outweigh Pete's, you'd have a lifetime banishment list with over 500 MLB players over history's past 100 years on it. And that's not an exageration.

Pete has suffered the consequences of his own stupidity. He made extremely poor decisions over the course of his life, but also gave an incredible vigor to the game. Don't let him manage, don't put him in the Hall, and make him pay for what he did. But don't sit high on the mount of judgement bashing him over and over, when so many others do far worse. To believe that Pete fractured baseball any more than so many others have..and STILL DO, is done with great hipocracy and ignorance.

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-07-2004, 01:07 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Todd

Leaving aside the various remarks you made about other players and focusing on Pete Rose, how is it you can call people "ignorant" for stating Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball when in fact that is exactly why he was banned. Do you honestly think he was banned for some other reason, or that he just agreed to be "ineligble" for the hell of it?

Re-read the agreement yourself. http://www.dowdreport.com/agreement.pdf

There was a factual basis to "find" him guilty at a hearing and impose the penalty--that point is admitted in the agreement itself. He was given an extension of time to prepare his defense once confronted with the Dowd report, as MLB offered him the opportunity to vindicate himself. You're right, MLB did not have to prove Rose responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. So why didn't they go forward? 1)to save baseball and Rose the embarrassment of showing his awful and unjustified behavior; 2) to save the time and expense of a hearing that would lead to the same result that Rose agreed to anyway. I truly wish they would have gone forward with the hearing--no doubt Rose would have lied further, and his true colors would be even more apparent, if that's possible.

The notion that Rose is now lying- and did not really bet on baseball- because it is the only way to improve his enshrinement chances, borders on the absurd. Still, I wouldn't put it past him to make that the thesis of his third autobiography--"The Return of the Martyr"-- and complete the trilogy of the poor, misunderstood hero who was duped by some slick bad guys and a system that was out to get him all along. I can hardly wait.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-07-2004, 01:10 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Jason

If morality was an issue we all should be rotting. All have sinned and fallen short. The bottom line is that Pete's career as a player was deserving for the Hall of Fame. Now the only logical question is: Should he be able to get in during his lifetime? I feel maybe not because he did break the rules. Should we pull out the Babe, Cobb, and others? What about Shoeless Joe? He was made to suffer the rest of his life. Why did Strawberry get 28 chances after drug rehab? The debate could go on and on. Let him in in the year 2040. He deserves the Hall.

Jason

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-07-2004, 01:14 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Comparing Pete Rose's betting on baseball with other athletes who commit crimes or do drugs is very much like comparing apples to oranges. Do both affect the integrity of the game? My answer is absolutely, although one is much more direct than the other. However, there is still a huge difference between the two.

I sincerely doubt that baseball has any specific rule against committing murder, mayhem, rape, robbery or a laundry list of various and sundry crimes. It doesn't need to because society does. Those rules are codified in the criminal statutes of every state, territory and possession in the U.S. When a baseball player commits a felony, his punishment is generally meeted out by the appropriate authorities in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, not by the Commissioner of baseball or (perish the thought) by the Player's Association.

In contrast, as the existence of Las Vegas attests, it is not necessarily illegal to bet on the outcome of a baseball game. Nonetheless, history has demonstrated time and again that betting on a sporting event has a potentially major effect on the outcome when engaged in by a participant. That's why every professional sport I am aware of has a rule against it. Its a matter of preventing an activity that is inimical to the sport and which has the capacity to destroy it in a much more direct and immediate way than off-the-field activities do.

Pete Rose is an excellent example of the difference. In that regard, I sincerely doubt that, had he not already been banned, the fact that he pled guilty to tax evasion would have resulted in his expulsion from baseball. At least it didn't for Denny McLain and Willie McCovey. Its not that baseball didn't care or that its image wasn't affected so much as it was that income tax evasion is a federal offense and is therefore properly dealt with by the feds. Conversely, betting on baseball by a baseball player is MLB's business because there is a rule against doing that which has been in effect since well before Rose started playing the game in little league.

Pete Rose does not have some sort of divine right to reinstatement or induction into the HOF. While it is true that the HOF is not filled with saints, it is also true that, at least to my knowledge, it isn't occupied by ANYONE who has openly admitted to breaking the rule prominently displayed in every professional clubhouse in America after having apparently spent the past 14 years lying about it.

I don't object to giving DESERVING people a second chance, in my opinion, Rose has not even attempted to show that he deserves such consideration. Rather, when I think of him, the old "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" adage comes to mind. Everything he does is calculated to make a buck, long-overdue confession included. I doubt that
will change if he is reinstated.

Pete Rose was a great ballplayer. He was fun to watch. It is too bad that he is now on the outside looking in. However, is also true that no one other than Pete Rose is responsible for committing the acts that led him to lead life in his "Prison Without Bars" (retail price $24.99). Although I defended him for years, I now cannot help but agree that he should remain on the outside looking in for at least the remainder of his miserable existence. That's the punishment that people who do what he did get.

Moreover, reinstating him would also have the effect of rendering the rule he broke, if not meaningless, at least much less meaningful than it is now. If Rose can get reinstated after admitting to have broken the rule, why couldn't others? How does bending the rule in favor of an "icon" like Rose affect the integrity of the game?

As someone else put it, if betting on baseball gets you expelled from the game, how does admitting that you bet on baseball get you reinstated? to my way of thinking, that's the question that needs to be answered. If someone can come up with an answer to that question which is consistent with the rules as they now stand, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I too hope he rots.

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-07-2004, 01:24 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Jason

I agree somewhat. I think he deserves to be in but not during his lifetime. He should not get to enjoy that.

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-07-2004, 08:17 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Cy

Isn't it openly known that Cobb bet on baseball?

Cy

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-07-2004, 09:25 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: jay behrens

After the 1926 season, it was strongly suggested to both Cobb and Speaker that they leave the game, becuase there was strong suspicion that the two of them were fixing games they played against each other. they both quit their jobs as manager.

Jay

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-07-2004, 09:33 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

What this whole episode goes to show us is that athletes' autobiographies should be taken with a grain of salt.

I remember when David Letterman asked Art Donovan what he thought of his (Donovan's) autobiography that had just come out. Donovan said, "I don't know. I haven't read it yet."

Then there was David Wells.



Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-07-2004, 09:36 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: runscott

I have thought Pete Rose was scum since '73 - that was when my 7 yr-old brother (and several other tykes) asked him to sign a ball after a game, and he smiled and told him he would be right back after he put his clothes in the team bus. I still have a photo I took of Rose with his suit bag slung over his shoulder as he headed for the bus. He then took a leisurely seat in the back of the bus, on the side near the kids, and smiled mockingly at them through the window. You never saw so many 7-yr old jaws drop in your life - I was incredulous. That was Rose the sadistic bastard.

But I was fortunate enough to get another dose of Rose again in '85 when the parent club of the Denver Zephyrs played them in Mile-Hi stadium. Player-manager Rose refused to come out and bat despite many calls from the fans. We began booing him around the 6th inning, and the booing did not stop until the Reds left the stadium. Rose refused to even acknowledge his fans.

Pete Rose has been lying all of his life, and it isn't stopping with this book - Rose is a loser who happened to have great athletic ability and a fierce desire to win...at any cost.

Does he deserve to be in the HOF? Yes, the year after Shoeless Joe is inducted.

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-07-2004, 09:46 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

David Wells said that he was misquoted in his autobiography

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-07-2004, 11:28 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Carl

Time for all the anti-Rose peeps to wake up to reality. I have a bunch of opinions on this.
#1- What gambling was at the turn of the 20th century is not what it is now. We have legal gambling casino's dotted across the US. Don't we read the BETTING lines everyday in every newspaper? Heck, how about we make a stop at Vegas and drop a 50 spot that the coin lands on heads for the superbowl.
#2- Do you really think that no other ballplayer has ever bet on baseball and do you think that there are any that don't do it now? Keep dreaming..Rose just happened to get caught.
#3- As for him breaking some sacred rule--"whoopie freakin do" I find cheating worse then any other action you can do. Cheating is completely and utterly a loser thing to do, there no "integrity" or "sportsmanship" in cheating. So with that said..we better pull out Whitey Ford (spit balls), Gaylord Perry (spit balls among others)among dozens of other HOF's that were caught cheating at one time or another in their careers.
Forget about Sammy Sosa getting in --heck he was swinging with a corked bat. Bonds, McGwire--not only should they not be allowed in..maybe the records should be erased..they used performance enhancers. That's cheating..no integrity in not playing fair now is there?
#4- The Hall of Fame is simple...to enshrine the "PLAYERS" that had a monumental impact on the field. Rose indeed had that. Should we care what he did as a manager, no, he stunk as one anyway, besides he would be voted in as a player.
The Hall of Fame is not the judge of character, honesty, or any other personal characteristics. It's about stats no doubt about that. And all those that disagree..well you better be pulling out Ty Cobb, Cap Anson..pure racists and heck one was a member of the KKK among other unspeakable acts. And while we are at it..lets take out Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle--they were drop dead drunks and womanizers of the ages, horrible .

Lets remember that Baseball is a game--it's not putting one single penny in my pocket and probably not yours either but I'll "bet" that it's taking a few dollars out of each of our pockets. It's entertainment and do we really care what the athletes do with their personal lives..no.
Rose broke a rule of baseball. Did his misjudgment make an effect on the game? Probably Not.
Does cheating make an effect on the game such as spitballs, corked bats, stealing signs from the outfield boxes, being juiced up so that you can hit a ball 500 feet off the end of the bat, and how many batters have been caught looking back at the catcher to steal a sign(that's against the rules too)? You better believe it does. But that's OK you say.
Rose's election to the HOF would be as a player and nothing else, no denying the fact that his numbers are among the greatest. Let him in and let it be...no one said he had to be allowed back in the game in any manner..but the man belongs in the HOF with the greats.

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-07-2004, 11:42 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

Carl, I appreate your input, but we were having a quiet discussion about the narrative voice in autobiographies, including Mr. Wells' use of hot dogs with boilermaker chasers imagery on page 223. To me, this imagery suggests Boomers' hunger for a Kiergeguardian absolute faith in God. Though someone else had the worthy point of view that this may show that he was hungry and wanted to get hammered.

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-08-2004, 12:32 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Adam J. Baxter

I'm not going to waste valuable Forum space griping about Rose. I was a huge Rose fan as a kid and now, especially over this last week, I feel betrayed. There have been lots of interesting opinions both for and against Rose on this board and I've enjoyed reading them. But I think no one can sum up the whole Pete Rose situation better then Grandmaster Gammons:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/sports/DailyNews/ESPNFeature1.html?0171210

BTW, During this recent Rose frenzy, a lot of people have been supporting Joe Jackson for reinstatement, and I agree with them, even though he DID accept the money, But I find it interesting that nobody's been throwing any support out there for Buck Weaver for reinstatement. Wasn't he the only member of the Black Sox that didn't take the money?

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-08-2004, 04:58 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Cy

Adam, interesting article on Rose by Gammons. So now he won't vote for Rose because all Rose thinks about is himself. I guess Gammons will also not vote for Bonds.

Cy

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-08-2004, 05:29 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Rose is scum, no doubt. But so are many players in the HOF. He bet on games which, other than fixing games, is the lowest thing you can do to the game itself. That being said, who the hell is MLB to be the morality police? It's a game...period. Let the lowlife in but just ban him from ever being permitted to work in the professional baseball industry.

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-08-2004, 07:25 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Mike (18colt)

Per Todd's request, I reread the agreement signed by Pete Rose and MLB pertaining to Rose's banishment. Todd asked the question pertaining to the reason for Rose's banishment if it was not gambling.

The document reads: ". . . the Commissioner of Baseball instituted an investigation of Peter Edward Rose, . . . concerning allegations that Peter Edward Rose engaged in conduct not in the best interests of baseball in violation of Rule 21, including but not limited to betting on Major League Baseball games in connection with which he had a duty to perform."

Only section (d) of Rule 21 addresses betting on games. Baseball's investigation looked into not just Rose's alleged (the agreement's word, not mine) gambling, but other potential infractions that fall under the auspices of Rule 21.

Section (f) of Rule 21 reads:

"OTHER MISCONDUCT. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the particular case may warrant."

Rose's association with convicted felons and reputed mobsters would certainly fit within the confines of this Section (f). The goodwill generated by Rose breaking Cobb's hit record in 1985 capped a career for one of baseball's best ambassadors. MLB could not allow one of their marquee names to drag in these individuals to potentially tarnish the image and integrity of the game. With felons and reputed mobsters mentioned in the same breath as MLB, reagrdless of any actual betting that may or may nor have occurred, the public would assume that illegal betting or game fixing was going on (much like most of the public believing that steroids run rampant, whether they actually do or not). MLB had to clean it up, and clean it up decisively in order to preserve its fanbase (The NBA had similar problems cleaning up their image of being a drug culture, but lucked out with Magic and Bird entering the draft the same time after their NCAA Finals dual).

Back to Rose, Rose could not deny that MLB had evidence to ban him under Section (f). IF MLB could've proved the gambling angle under Section (d), they would have, if for no other reason to demonstrate that no one player was above the game. But since they had holes that could be exploited under examination, they had Rose under Section (f). Why didn't Rose fight it? As said earlier, MLB had proof under Section (f), and potential proof under Section (d). There is a chance that Rose loves baseball so much that he didn't want this to drag on and on and on, and focus the attention on his battle with MLB instead of the players and the games.

Now, a few comments on the Gammons article.

Gammons wrote that Rose's timing of the release of his book was so that he could steal the spotlight away from the new HOF inductees. Yes and no. Some speculate that Rose had an agreement with Selig to not release the book for the holidays (i.e., Christmas shoppers) because the talk would spill over into the new year and interfere with the HOF announcement. Rose could have lost a lot of money there, but did it anyway. The timing of the release date of his book is AFTER the HOF's announcement. If the media hadn't leaked information, Molitor and Eckersley would have had the time they deserved to be center stage (though they will again this summer in Cooperstown). If the revelations revealed in the November 2002 meeting between Rose and Selig could be kept secret until now, is there reason to believe that an agreement between Rose and MLB also could be kept secret this long? MLB likely orchestrated when Rose could reveal all and release his book. The media frenzy, unfortunatley, couldn't control itself and wait until tomorrow.

Comments on other comments made on this thread:

If Joe Jackson was given a lifetime ban, he can't be placed on the "permanently ineligible" list after the fact. They're 2 different lists. Thus, Jackson should be HOF-eligible.

Buck Weaver had some lesser role in the Black Sox affair, but I don't recall what it was. He, too, I think should be exonerated. Didn't Jackson give the money back, but because he didn't report the game fixing by his teammates, he was guilty, too?

Another thread discusses 19th century betting practices amongst baseball players. Despite the fact that I am a Rose fan, I have to agree that IF Rose bet on baseball, he broke the rules, because the rule didn't exist until after the Black Sox scandal, whereas Cap Anson and company weren't doing anything wrong or illegal at the time they played. Apples and oranges indeed.

No one addressed my E102 question from my original reply to this thread. Page up to find it.

The point was made to differentiate between those who break baseball's rules, and those who break society's rules/laws. If a player murdered someone, baseball wouldn't have to ban the player, because society will enact its own prescribed punishment. But if the player murdered another player during the course of a game, and affected the outcome, then baseball would have to ban the player under Rule 21(f), since depending on the state the crime took place and the sentence imposed, the murderer could get out of jail someday and try to find employment in baseball. My point here is that when someone uses illegal and/or performance enhancing drugs during the season, they will affect and impact the results, records, stats, etc. of the games they take part in and should get more than the slap on the wrist they get now. If MLB really wanted to clean up, they'd just lockout the players until they got a drug policy that was effective, and impose harsh penalties for performance enhancing drug use and corked bats and other such actions that affect the outcome of games. Some big names would leave the game, records would be changed, and fans would be lost temporarily, but the game would be clean(er) again, and we could all focus on the outcomes and the players, and not the scandals.

One last thought, since this is a vintage card forum -- if someone wanted to collect just one Joe Jackson card, which would you suggest? Which is the easiest to obtain in low, low, low condition (we're not all high end card collectors due to budget restrictions)?

Thanks for the Rose thread. His supporters need to come out and support him.

A possible agreement -- reinstate Rose, allow him to be eligible for the Hall, but if he wants a baseball job, it must be in the minor leagues, and not as a manager (roving hitting instructor?)? Then Mike Schmidt can put him on his staff in Clearwater, and they can wager on golf daily.

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-08-2004, 08:37 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Actually, a violation of Rule 21(f) does not mandate a lifetime suspension. In 1947, Leo Durocher was suspended for one year while manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers for a violation of Rule 21(f), i.e., for "conduct detrimental to baseball." His offense? Consorting with mobsters, gangsters, and other character types viewed as unsavory by the Baseball powers that be. He was back in 1948 and obviously went on to manage the Giants and make it to the HOF.

In any event, I think it is a little self-delusional to believe that Rose was banished for any reason other than betting on baseball. If you want to believe that there was some other reason, you are certainly entitled to do so. However, there isn't much evidence supporting such a view that I know of. Indeed, Fay Vincent and Bart Giamatti made it pretty clear that, in their opinion, Rose was betting on games. I suspect that they had more information about what was going on than you or I.

As for Joe Jackson cards, my two personal favorites are the Cracker Jacks and the E90-1. Some of his game cards and strip cards are cheaper though.

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-08-2004, 10:48 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: runscott

None of his behavior has been out of character for an addict and habitual liar. If he were truly repenting, he would simply call a press conference (to be held at a more appropriate time), announce what he did and ask forgiveness from his public and from baseball, then step down from the podium and wait. And while waiting, perhaps stay out of the casinos and race tracks. Also, either before or after said announcement, he should repent to Selig as well.

But like a true habitual liar, Rose doesn't trust anyone. So he is setting everything up possible so that he can "force" Selig to reinstate him, not realizing that he can't force Selig to do anything. Hustling and sliding head-first with his shoulders squared isn't going to do him any good this time.

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-08-2004, 10:49 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: jay behrens

Seems most people here are forgetting a few things. #1 is that the HOF is NOT owned, operated or controled by MLB. #2 I forget the exact wording of the criteria for getting into the HOF, but the word INTEGRITY is one of them. And Rose lacks it in great amounts.

Like many people here, I was a big Rose fan as a kid, but lost all respect for him after the whole betting thing and lying to everyone for 14 years. Plus, he has shown that he cares only about himself, always timing things to happen around the HOF to try and steal the thunder from deserving people.

Cy, you may think Bonds is an egomaniac, but he doesn't hold a candle to Rose. And as much as people may not like performance enhancing drugs, Bonds did nothing that violated the rules of baseball. Players eat better today, take vitamins and other suppliments to enhance their performance. Should all modern records be erased simply because today's players have personal trainers and other advantages that Cobb, Ruth and others did not have? Baseball is an ever evolving game, with the game constantly being tweeked. Throughout the history of basbeball, the older generation has always claimed the newest generation of players has an unfair advantage and that their records should be rendered meaningless.

Jay

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-08-2004, 11:00 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

Here is what I think is a worthwhile point on the subject, and one that I think some forget:

--> Pete Rose agreed to be banned for life. He's was an adult and signed his own name to this agreement, with his high priced lawyers present and giving him constant advice. He did this because he thought it was in his best interest. <---

And am I supposed to also feel bad for Alex Rodriguez because he can't get out of his contract?

Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-08-2004, 11:03 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: runscott

Agreed. If the Cobb/Speaker incident were to come up today, would we want them banished from the game? Few on this board would be in favor of Cobb's banishment, despite what we know about his deplorable behavior - he's simply a nasty but great baseball player to us, and rightfully sits in the HOF. And Speaker is a vintage favorite, despite admitted betting on ML games. Maybe if we had been alive during the Cobb/Speaker thing, and the details had been in the paper every day, we would have been in favor of their banishment as well.

Also, perhaps there was more betting, etc., in Cobb's day, so minor violations were overlooked; however, outside of the Black Sox scandal (when Jackson was banished), Landis never again banished a star player, but continued to banish minor players for small offenses. This doesn't mean the stars were all clean. Landis was brought in to "clean up" and so it was necessary to banish the Sox for the good of baseball. But also for the good of baseball, it was necessary to not banish additional stars once things had settled down and baseball was viewed by the public as more or less clean.

Volume #4 of the "Fireside" books has a detailed account of Judge Landis' career as commissioner, describing each of the situations where he did or did not banish players from baseball.

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-09-2004, 02:12 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: jay behrens

The biggest difference between the Cobb/Speaker incident and the Rose situation is that Cobb and Speaker walked away quietly without raising a stink. Rose on the other hand was incapable of following the simple instructions asked of him and has done nothing but dig his hole deeper.

Was Cobb a nasty, despicable and vile person? No doubt about it. Did he bet on and/or fix games? Most likely. But the big difference between Cobb and Rose is that Cobb seemed to understand that he was not bigger than the game and walked way when he was asked to. Rose still believes that he is bigger than the game and should be accorded special treatment that no one else in his position has ever gotten.

Someone said that Rose should go in a year after Joe Jackson does. I can forgive the Black Sox players for their misdeeds becuase of the situation that existed in their day where gamblers could offer almost a full years salary as a bribe to throw games. Rose has no such excuse for betting on and possibly compromising the integrity of the game.

Jay

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-09-2004, 07:35 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Mike (18colt)

The point was made a few posts ago that the HOF is not controlled by MLB, etc. Though true for the most part, one link remains.

The HOF, after Rose's banishment, changed their election rules so that no player on MLB's permanently ineligible list was eligible for election. Thus, if MLB takes Rose off of this list, Pete Rose will appear on the ballot (unless the HOF changes their rules again, maybe stating that a player spending any time on that list is ineligible). Essentially, by removing Rose from the permanently ineligible list, Bud Selig and MLB are putting Rose on the HOF ballot.

Other Rose views . . . .

Rob Dibble wrote an article that actually made a few good points. He reminded us that the HOF is a museum reflecting the rich history of the game, and by keeping Rose out of it, a piece of history is essentially erased, censored out. From that viewpoint, is it fair to the fans of the game that Pete Rose's contributions, both good and bad, are largely ignored? Dibble argues that Rose should be Hall-eligible, but still doesn't think that Rose should be allowed back in a managerial role.

I have a question. For those that think that Rose might have made in-game decisions on games he allegedly bet on the Reds to win that negatively impacted players' careers or future games or potential playoff spots, has any research been done to try to determine if any questionable decisions were made? For example, did he bring in a closer (Dibble, perhaps) 3 or 4 straight nights instead of resting him for a day? Did he not give a day off to a hurting but productive star player? I'd be curious if there are answers to this question and those similar to this that would support claims that Rose committed selfish acts through his managerial role to win bets? SABR ever research this? The Dowd Report details bets and some of their outcomes, but not the "how" for Reds games. Any thoughts?

Since this is a vintage card forum, I'll ask a vintage card question. How in the world did Hal Chase get 5 cards in the T-206 set? He wasn't the best player of his day.

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-09-2004, 08:45 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Pete Rose doesn't need to be elected to the HOF in order for it to reflect his "rich contributions" to the game. It undoubtedly has plenty of the Rose photos, cards, uniforms, bats, gloves, and other memorabilia necessary to celebrate his achivements. He may have even signed some of those items (for a price, of course). Similarly, the HOF has Joe Jackson items and items from players who had one or more shining moments of glory but who nonetheless will never be elected, i.e., Don Larson. Indeed, if the HOF's primary function is simply to act as a museum, it doesn't need to ever elect any members. How many museums do? If it is just a museum celebrating the history of the game, that celebration can be adequately exemplified by the artifacts reflecting that history.

I don't think of the HOF as simply a museum. To me, it is (or at least was supposed to be), more akin to a pantheon of the so-called "baseball gods." Moreover, to my way of thinking, election to the HOF should be viewed as an honor, not as some sort of right. It should be deserved, not expected or taken for granted. The criteria is not, nor should it be, simply based on a player's on the field performance.

Pete Rose reminds me of the old story about the guy who killed his parents and then, during his murder trial, asked the Court for clemency because he was an orphan. He spit on the game he professes to love for the simple reason that he didn't think he'd be caught. Even now, there are questions being raised about whether his 14-year late so-called "confession" is the whole truth. As far as I'm concerned, if Bud reinstates him, it will simply prove that the two of them richly deserve each other.

As far as the HOF goes, the accomplishments of Pete Rose the player can be duly celebrated without hanging his plaque there. However, in my opinion, Pete Rose the person does not deserve the honor which being elected to the HOF should represent. 'Nuff said.

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-09-2004, 10:38 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

How's this for a fair compromise. Rose can become unconditionally eligible for the Hall of Fame, but he has to wait the same fifteen years that it took for him to admit to his deed (and, for 15 years, having no apparent problem whatsoever with painting Jim Gray, deceased Giammati, Fay Vincent, Kahn, fellow teammates, etc of being liars). And if it takes 3 years from now for him to admit that he bet from the clubhouse (again, despite what Down says) and that he refused to bet on Reds games whenever Mario Sota or Bill Gullickson was scheduled to start (gee, no harm in betting for your team, huh? If you bet for your team 3 out of 5 games and don't for the other two because you don't like your starters, isn't that essentially the same as betting against your team for two games? And, if it isn't, please explain to me how this is a constructive thing to be doing for your team. "Sorry, Soto, you suck. There's no way I'd bet for the Reds today." Wouldn't it all be simpler and cleaner if there was a rule in baseball that that manager shouldn't be allowed to bet on baseball games? Perhaps MLB should consider a rule), you add another 3 years to the total.

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-09-2004, 10:56 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

In short, I am all for Rose's eligibility for the Hall, in 15+ years. As a side benifit, this will encourage Pete to excercize, eat well and drop a couple of pounds so that he can enjoy the momentous day.

As a side note. I'm not particularly offended that Pete lied about what he did or didn't do-- we all have secrets, and it's no doubt difficult to admit in a public way that you have a gambling or other problem. I am, however, not impressed with the ease he had in labelling in very public ways that others were liars, when he knew that they were correct. This is magnified because, due to his big name and great popularity, he had much more power than those he accused.

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-09-2004, 11:07 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

Lastly, I beleive in forgiveness and redemption. We all make mistakes .... However, saying sorry does not mean that all responsibilities and, as the case may be, punishment are automatically forgiven. In fact, in many to most cases, saying "I'm sorry" includes the willing acceptance of the due punishment .... Particularly with addictions, one of the worst things to do is to protect the addicted from their responsibilities.

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-09-2004, 11:12 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: Hankron

As exemplified by a years ago conversation I might have had with my mom:

"I'm sorry I broke the vase, Mom."
"I accept your appology, David. You owe me $30."

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-10-2004, 06:28 AM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: leon

I was almost for letting him back in until last night. As one who teaches "Life Skills" every week to homeless veterans, that have drug and alcohol problems, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Unless I am mistaking I didn't hear him admit he has a problem last night. I could have missed it though as I was rummaging (sp?) through a few hundred Zeenuts wondering if I might start collecting sets now? Mike Schmidt said it best...to parphrase him......if someone has a drinking problem they shouldn't work in a bar. From what I understand Rose recently (not sure when) became part owner in a racehorse. That's kind of like Michael Jackson baby sitting.....later

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-10-2004, 08:06 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Pete Rose Can Rot

Posted By: W.M.

I don't want to ever see Shoeless Joe get in either but after watching a pathetic Pete Rose on ABC last night I have alot more respect for Shoeless who quietly faded away and even though denied, quietly applied for re-instatement.

Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pete Rose Archive Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 8 02-03-2008 11:26 AM
Pete Rose in the HOF? Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 60 01-27-2003 08:06 AM
News Flash~ Pete Rose Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 0 12-28-2002 10:15 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 PM.


ebay GSB