Interesting ESPN poll regarding Pete Rose's lifetime ban

[the 'stache]

You know guys, I may be having a change of heart here, only because it seems I might have been wrong on one very important fact. It's always been my understanding that he bet on baseball, and on the Cincinnati Reds, while he was a manager, and not a player. As such, I've always made the very important distinction that Rose did nothing while he was an active player that would have warranted his inclusion on the ineligible list. Because of that, I've felt that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a player, and banned from the game (including any future employment with baseball) because of his actions as a manager.

But Rose, for the first few years he managed, was still a player. So, my feelings on this matter would change if it's shown that he gambled on baseball at all between 1984 and 1986. If he did, then I do not feel he should be removed from the ineligible list. If he only gambled when he was a manager only, then I feel he should be removed from the ineligible list so the Baseball Writers have the opportunity to consider him for Cooperstown. He should otherwise be banned from baseball.

I've been looking on Google to try and find an answer as to when he started gambling, and thus far, I haven't been able to find an answer. But I wish to amend my earlier post. If Rose gambled even once, even if it was on his last day as a player/manager, then his entire playing career is tainted, and he should never be in the Hall. But if he gambled while he was a manager only, I feel a distinction needs to be made. I don't feel that Rose the played should be penalized because of what Rose the manager did.

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a player, and banned from the game (including any future employment with baseball) because of his actions as a manager.

The quote above covers my opinion.

And Olberman made a great point last night... baseball only wants Pete Rose when it benefits baseball. When a high dollar sponsor (MasterCard) told baseball that they wanted Pete Rose to be at the appearance, baseball took the money and let him be in the ceremony.

There is a great hypocrisy going on. Rose is banned from anything to do with baseball... unless baseball can make money off him.

[packs]

As has been pointed out, Rose was both a manager and a player at the same time. His actions as a manager were the same as his actions as a player. If he should be banned for one, he should be banned for the other too.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by ZachS

The quote above covers my opinion.

And Olberman made a great point last night... baseball only wants Pete Rose when it benefits baseball. When a high dollar sponsor (MasterCard) told baseball that they wanted Pete Rose to be at the appearance, baseball took the money and let him be in the ceremony.

There is a great hypocrisy going on. Rose is banned from anything to do with baseball... unless baseball can make money off him.

+1...fantastic point, and spot on....

[Mountaineer1999]

I'm in the apparent minority here but I say he should go in. His crime is not in line with the banned players from the 19 series. If he had intentionally thrown any game then it's obvious to ban him but that's not the case. The way I understand it , he bet on the Reds to win and on other major league games.
Baseball is a game of the people, 80% fan support is an awfully big number to argue against. I don't like what Pete Rose did but I have a bigger issue with steroids and certainly with the 19th century racists that seem to get a free pass.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1...fantastic point, and spot on....

And to me largely irrelevant bc Pete continues to make money basically solely bc of his baseball career. This hasn't prevented him from earning baseball-related money.

[sycks22]

If we believe Rose that he only bet on the Reds to win, how could he affect that outcome? Pretty sure he doesn't want to lose money and if he puts all of his studs on the field and they lose it benefits nobody. If it did come out that he bet against the Reds that's a totally different ball of wax. I say put him in the hall as he bet as a manager and not a player (assuming he didn't bet while he was a player/coach).

[Mountaineer1999]

I say prove it. They need to prove it to me and the other 80% that his betting led to thrown games or he bet on his teams to lose. At least put him on the ballot and let the HOF voters determine his HOF fate.

[HRBAKER]

That's not the way the rule reads, all you have to do is be an idiot and bet. Which he obliged knowingly.