Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugsy
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
"This last bit bothers me. Rose broke a MLB rule that carries the sport's version of a death penalty. I believe he should be 'dead' to MLB--permanently ineligible for work--but the rules keeping him out of the HOF did not exist at the time of his offenses. That is an example of an ex post facto criminal law. Clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 and Clause 1 of Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution prohibit the Federal government and state governments from passing criminal laws that criminalize and punish past conduct that was not criminal at the time of the offense. Punishing Pete Rose for old offenses with new rules that expand his punishment is not how we do things. I think he is entitled to a vote of the Veterans' Committee. Now, does that open a potential can of worms for all of the ineligible players? Maybe. But I don't think the current situation is fair to Rose."
I truly don't mean to be crass, but wouldn't this same thinking apply to the Black Sox? Landis made an example of them and basically banned them after the fact (regardless of their varying levels of guilt). Just curious...
|
Yeah, it would, and that would not be a problem for me, if they wanted to set a Vet committee vote on them. I personally would not vote for them, or for Rose, but I think he deserves a vote. Now, if a player did what they did today, with the rules in place, no way, no how.
As for the juicers, they are getting their swings with the BWAA and with the VC later. If they don't get elected, so be it.
03-17-2015, 10:36 AM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
