Rose requests to be reinstated

[packs]

Nothing. He will get something he thinks he's entitled to and he'll start making more money sitting outside in a lawn chair writing HOF on baseballs instead of I Shot JFK.

[Exhibitman]

I loved Pete Rose as a kid; even wrote a fan letter and got a signed photo. But he did it. The Dowd Report documented his alleged bets on 52 Reds games in 1987.

The rule is crystal clear: "Rule 21 Misconduct, (d) Betting on Ball Games, 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."

Rose repeatedly admitted he broke that rule. In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted to betting on Reds games. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. In March 2007, during an interview on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, Rose said, "I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team," he said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

So, Rose admittedly broke the one rule that calls for the 'death penalty' in baseball. He is properly permanently ineligible for a position in baseball. But the HOF was not part of that regime. On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted formally to exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame by way of the Baseball Writers Association of America vote. He would have been eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee in 2007, but did not appear on the ballot. In 2008 the Veterans Committee barred players and managers on the ineligible list from consideration.

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.

[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...

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brewing

I agree. There were no rules in MLB on steroids.

Plus, not that it matters much but he's such a narcissist, i don't think he deserves to enjoy it.

Steve Howe wants that year of his career back. There were rules against steroids. They are illegal drugs and covered under baseball's substance abuse policy. Fay Vincent in 1991 sent out a memo to all teams reminding them that steroids were banned. Players were suspended during the 80s for use of illegal drugs. There is no difference between Rose and Bonds, Clemens, etc.

[bigtrain]

I don't like Pete Rose. Didn't like him as a player. Don't like him now. He is nicer to fans now since he sells his autograph to make a living but he is still a jerk IMHO. At the time he was banned from baseball, Rose was only 48 years old. He could have managed or coached for another 20 years or so. He will be 74 next month so it is fair to say that he will never have an active field job again even if he were reinstated tomorrow. He has lost a lot and has only himself to blame. If I thought he was truly remorseful, it wouldn't bother me to see Rose have a Hall of Fame plaque although I doubt I would be interested in his induction speech. On the other hand, Rose did serve time for tax evasion. Are there any other convicted felons in the HoF? Other than Orlando Cepeda?

[autograf]

A vote for 'In'. Keep him out of managing, owning, etc anything to do with BB but as a player, he deserves to be in. I don't think he would have ever made it as a manager anyway as his teams weren't exactly setting the world on fire. As for his cards, I don't think that matters either way if he's in or out. They're in a pretty static trading range to begin with. As for his earning potential from autos/etc, I don't see that going exponentially up or anything anyway.

Bottom line, if they're not going to reinstate him, stop trotting him out at events that benefit Major League Baseball and don't let him come back to Great American Ballpark for the 2015 All Star Game as has been said that will happen. The hypocrisy on MLB's part makes them look no better. My belief is something will happen between now and the All Star Game to get him back into baseball. Will he ever get in the HOF? It'll be a tough road but I think he will be back in BB.

[Exhibitman]

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

mike,

I have the perfect card for you then! a 71 rose w/ the red sox!!!

I had that card (the normal one), but realized that Rose was a turd long before he bet on baseball. I hung that Rose card on my dartboard along with the common dups.

Rose is exactly where he should be. As others have said, he'll never get voted into the HOF even if he is reinstated.

[nolemmings]

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...

I don't follow this at all. Landis investigated while the allegations of fixing were still fresh, not "after the fact". He was hired because of the Black Sox scandal. Moreover, players had been banned before the Black Sox scandal---banned, not suspended. The Black Sox can maybe argue they were acquitted and that ought to count for something (an unimpressive argument IMO) or that enforcement was spotty, but the concerns that baseball had with gambling were long-established and serious before that scandal. It was prominently displayed that no betting was allowed. They can hardly complain they had no idea what they were getting into as far as punishment was concerned.
Check the background on these cards: --"No.... Betting"


As for Rose, the warning about being permanently banned was posted in the clubhouse of every professional team for whom he ever played. That punishment is hardly ex post facto, which if course is a criminal law precept that has marginal if any application to entry into a place of honor. The theory behind the doctrine is that people should know what "punishment" might await them if they engage in certain conduct so they can make informed decisions and assess the penalties of risky or wrongful behavior. IMO, it is lame to argue that Rose knew he could be permanently banned from baseball if he gambled as a player or manager but that he never would have taken that risk if he also knew that it could make him automatically ineligible for the Hall of Fame.

Keep him out.


EDITED TO ADD: It also should be remembered that a) Rose agreed to a lifetime ban; and b) he continued to lie for years that he had bet on baseball. Each of these further supports a denial of his request.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don't follow this at all. Landis investigated while the allegations of fixing were still fresh, not "after the fact". He was hired because of the Black Sox scandal. Moreover, players had been banned before the Black Sox scandal, and I mean banned, not suspended. The Black Sox can maybe argue they were acquitted and that ought to count for something (an unimpressive argument IMO) or that enforcement was spotty, but the concerns that baseball had with gambling were long-established and serious before that scandal. It was prominently displayed that no betting was allowed.
Check the background on these cards: --"No.... Betting"


As for Rose, the warning about being permanently banned was posted in the clubhouse of every professional team for whom he ever played. That punishment is hardly ex post facto, which if course is a criminal law precept that has marginal if any application to entry into a place of honor. The theory behind the doctrine is that people should know what "punishment" might await them if they engage in certain conduct so they can make informed decisions and assess the penalties of risky or wrongful behavior. IMO, it is lame to argue that Rose knew he could be permanently banned from baseball if he gambled as a player or manager but that he never would have taken that risk if he also knew that it could make him automatically ineligible for the Hall of Fame.

Keep him out.

This proclamation is certainly after the fact.

"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball"

Now I am particularly thinking of Buck Weaver when I say this. He didn't take money and didn't throw games, yet Landis banned him for not "promptly" reporting it. It is one thing to ban a game-fixer, but vastly different to ban someone for not reporting something. Considering how wide-spread game fixing was at that time, that part of Landis' proclamation seems completely after the fact to me and incredibly unfair to Weaver. I think Buck always had a strong argument to be reinstated and he should be cleared long before either Pete Rose or Joe Jackson.

Pete Rose and Joe Jackson should be in the H.O.F. nothing new there

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Steve- you missed my point: If the voters couldn't decide on Minnie while he lived (ala Ron Santo), then rose deserves no better.

I think they should at least be able to vote on him.

[Bugsy]

I also want to add that I think Jackson is far more innocent than Rose. While I never bought into the whole illiterate Rube argument that he didn't know what was going on, there are some books on the 1919 scandal that have claimed Jackson didn't receive any money until after the Series and that he then twice tried to turn the money in. The first instance was the morning after the Series (also the morning after he was given the money), but Harry Grabiner wouldn't let Joe see Comiskey, who was already trying to insulate himself. The second time was when Grabiner went to South Carolina over the winter to get Joe to sign his 1920 contract.

We all know there are dozens of versions of who tried their best, who didn't, who was paid when, etc. Joe may be guilty, but in my mind, it is just as likely that he is innocent. Opinions certainly vary on that and we will never know for certain, but my real point is that there is a mountain of information condemning Rose. There is a better argument to clear both Buck AND Joe before Pete. In all honesty, it might be in baseball's best interest to do none of the above.

[nolemmings]

This proclamation is certainly after the fact.

"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball"

I can agree that the notion of placing an affirmative duty on someone to report a fix, as opposed to participating in the conspiracy itself, is something that may not have been articulated well (or at all) before 1919, and thus view Weaver's case somewhat differently if you believe he opted out. Still, before that time players had been been banned for conspiring with gamblers; heck even for contract jumping, so it wasn't a huge stretch to at least fear a lifetime ban if you were known to have "associated with gamblers", even if they were your own teammates.
Remember too that Weaver et al were charged with crimes of conspiracy, which would have effectively ended their careers had they been found guilty and thus in essence imposed a form of banishment apart from baseball's own decision-making. Seems to me if I do something that might be criminal it would occur to me that my profession might take a dim view of it as well, such that I shouldn't be surprised if I am disciplined even if my exact situation might not have arisen before with others. It's a shame it put him in a posiion of ratting out his friends or going down with them, but given the enormity of the scandal and how it could have completely ruined baseball, I can see why Landis took an aggressive approach with the rod.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don't follow this at all. Landis investigated while the allegations of fixing were still fresh, not "after the fact". He was hired because of the Black Sox scandal. Moreover, players had been banned before the Black Sox scandal---banned, not suspended. The Black Sox can maybe argue they were acquitted and that ought to count for something (an unimpressive argument IMO) or that enforcement was spotty, but the concerns that baseball had with gambling were long-established and serious before that scandal. It was prominently displayed that no betting was allowed. They can hardly complain they had no idea what they were getting into as far as punishment was concerned.
Check the background on these cards: --"No.... Betting"


.

5 players were banned in 1876-77, but none after that. Do you really think players didn't continue to associate with gamblers and fix games? You could argue that they should have known not to fix the world series, but no betting or fixing games was not a rule.

[nolemmings]

Apparently you cannot see the forest for the trees. Do you not see the cards I posted showing that NO BETTING was prominently displayed? Players had been banned for gambling scandals so long it was not even much of an issue. A team physician was banned for bribing an umpire, i.e. fixing a game; a manager was informally banned (fired and blackballed) for trying to fix a batting title in favor of Lajoie. And yes I know Hal Chase and others lived on the edge and apparently never got caught or "convicted" of potential gambling ties but if you think that the players were unaware that they could not gamble or fix games you are clueless. Players could be banned for simply not honoring their contracts and could be jailed for fixing their games, yet you believe there was no “rule” against fixing the results?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Apparently you cannot see the forest for the trees. Do you not see the cards I posted showing that NO BETTING was prominently displayed? Players had been banned for gambling scandals so long it was not even much of an issue. A team physician was banned for bribing an umpire, i.e. fixing a game; a manager was informally banned (fired and blackballed) for trying to fix a batting title in favor of Lajoie. And yes I know Hal Chase and others lived on the edge and apparently never got caught or "convicted" of potential gambling ties but if you think that the players were unaware that they could not gamble or fix games you are clueless. Players could be banned for simply not honoring their contracts and could be jailed for fixing their games, yet you believe there was no “rule” against fixing the results?

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker fixed a game. Why were they never banned? Why are they in the Hall of Fame? There were several other players who fixed games prior to the 1919 WS and were not banned until after the Black Sox scandal broke. Why were there no players banned for over 40 years?

John Mc Graw bet on his team to win the 1905 WS. It was public knowledge, but he was never punished. Why is he in the hof?

Betting on baseball wasn't a formal rule until 1926. One year if you bet on a baseball game, life if you bet on your team. Why did Landis need to make this rule if it existed prior to 1919?

[Theo_450]

Oh Pete.
You have got what you find on the street.
You named a great slide,
Now on the sword you have died,
Should have not led with your head but your feet.

Anyone want to trade for a 1985 MINT Pete Rose official baseball card set?
120 cards I found in my grandfathers attic. Truly MINT and exceedingly rare/scarce...

Will trade for gently used Harley parts or ammo, or a fried pork chop biscuit from Hardee's.

Edited to add... I do not have the fancy red box...

[RedlegsFan]

Folks, we sorta got a problem. 4256 is the number of hits Rose smacked, not times he went to the bookie. I'm sorry Pete isn't portrayed on a tobacco card that will soon pay your grand daughters college tuition. I'm sorry Pete wasn't even born until after Pearl Harbor. And I'm sorry Ty Cobb's hit record was violated by a gambler.... No matter what he gambled, how much his cards suck or whatever, the man was and still is the best in baseball history at doing the very thing baseball is all about, "hitting the gosh damn ball with a stick." And he did it during an era where curve balls were actually considered gentlemanly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedlegsFan]

Sorry, Ol Pete "was" born before Pearl Harbor... Bad suggestion, but you get what I'm saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[baseball tourist]

Don't think 'OL Pete should be reinstated. If the the new Commish gives him more than a sniff, wouldn't it be a slap in Bud Selig's face; especially this early after retirement?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by rats60

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker fixed a game. Why were they never banned? Why are they in the Hall of Fame? There were several other players who fixed games prior to the 1919 WS and were not banned until after the Black Sox scandal broke. Why were there no players banned for over 40 years?

John Mc Graw bet on his team to win the 1905 WS. It was public knowledge, but he was never punished. Why is he in the hof?

Betting on baseball wasn't a formal rule until 1926. One year if you bet on a baseball game, life if you bet on your team. Why did Landis need to make this rule if it existed prior to 1919?

It would be naive to argue that gambling on baseball did not exist prior to 1919, and baseball could be selective in enforcing its rules, but that is not the point. The issue was raised that the Black Sox were treated in some after-the- fact fashion; i.e., that what they did was somehow not against the rules and that it was arguably unfair to punish them, or at least Weaver, for conduct that had not been proscribed previously. That is simply untrue.

I assume you have read about the Louisville Grays scandal in 1877 and the banishments that followed for association with gamblers/fixing of games. Those banned players tried repeatedly to be reinstated over the years, and their pleas were always denied, so the message about baseball coming down seriously on fixers was commonly known. If you peruse “The Fix is In: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals” by Daniel Ginsburg, you’ll see a narrative of several gambling investigations from after the Louisville scandal through the first part of the 20th Century. In no case did the players ever challenge an accusation of fixing or gambling by claiming there was no rule against it. None defended by saying such conduct was not prohibited. They would claim that they did not do what was alleged, or, more accurately, that it could not be proved, but they did not argue that gambling on baseball and rigging of games was somehow ambiguous or acceptable behavior, or that someone guilty of same did not merit strong punishment. That issue had been decided long before, which is my point– the punishments doled out to Weaver et. al. were not unprecedented and were not without there being a “rule” against the activity they chose to undertake.

[Joshchisox08]

No way. You let him back in you let the 8 men out back in you let Chase back in. Cicotte, Jackson, Chase, and maybe Williams and Weaver are HOF's. It would open to big a can of worms. Absolutely NOT.


The whole other half of it think of how the Sox players lives were ruined after that. Think of Pete Rose. Would it really be fair to re-instate him especially while he is alive ? I don't think so. He's still rich, he still has everything, he still bet on baseball.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

It would be naive to argue that gambling on baseball did not exist prior to 1919, and baseball could be selective in enforcing its rules, but that is not the point. The issue was raised that the Black Sox were treated in some after-the- fact fashion; i.e., that what they did was somehow not against the rules and that it was arguably unfair to punish them, or at least Weaver, for conduct that had not been proscribed previously. That is simply untrue.

I assume you have read about the Louisville Grays scandal in 1877 and the banishments that followed for association with gamblers/fixing of games. Those banned players tried repeatedly to be reinstated over the years, and their pleas were always denied, so the message about baseball coming down seriously on fixers was commonly known. If you peruse “The Fix is In: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals” by Daniel Ginsburg, you’ll see a narrative of several gambling investigations from after the Louisville scandal through the first part of the 20th Century. In no case did the players ever challenge an accusation of fixing or gambling by claiming there was no rule against it. None defended by saying such conduct was not prohibited. They would claim that they did not do what was alleged, or, more accurately, that it could not be proved, but they did not argue that gambling on baseball and rigging of games was somehow ambiguous or acceptable behavior, or that someone guilty of same did not merit strong punishment. That issue had been decided long before, which is my point– the punishments doled out to Weaver et. al. were not unprecedented and were not without there being a “rule” against the activity they chose to undertake.

So instead of answering my questions, you change the subject. The fact is that there was no rule, otherwise, there would have be no need to hire Landis as commissoner. There would have been no need for Landis to make a rule against gambling in 1926.

The fact that McGraw publicly bet on his team without punishment, supports that. So does 40 plus years of looking the other way. Even after Landis was hired, an exception was made for Cobb.

The bottom line is that it was only public out cry after the 1919 WS that forced baseball to clean up what it had been ignoring for years. If not for that, some, if not all would never been banned.

[nolemmings]

I owe you no answers to any of your questions. The banishment for throwing games was around for 40 years. It was not an eye-opening, unprecedented punishment, nor were the players at any time deluding themselves into thinking there would be no repercussions if they threw ballgames. That was the point throughout my exchange with Chris. If you don't get that, that's just too damn bad.

I will let others more familiar with specific player investigations or scandals speak to those, as I do not profess to be an expert on all things baseball gambling--apparently you are. I know that the Speaker-Cobb incident came to light after Landis was appointed, that both were released by their teams and retired shortly thereafter. It could not in any way be said that the Black Sox looked to that example as some sort of precedent that they could away with fixing their games or avoid banishment-- they would not have been aware of it or its fallout.

I would offer that Judge Landis’ edict in the early 20's may have clarified things, but that it again it had no impact on the what the Eight Men Out had done. Landis declared a one-year punishment for those who bet on other people’s baseball games, and a lifetime ban for those who bet on their own games in which they had a duty to perform. Of course the scandals of the past that had rocked public confidence centered on fixing games and deliberately losing. Landis made it clear that betting on any baseball was punishable for a year, and that betting even on your own team to win was worthy of lifetime banishment–perhaps those things had not been made clear before; again, I’m not the historian here. Either way and again, the penalty for fixing a game or series–deliberately losing– had been made known for years and was clear.

Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you answered one put to you not only by me previously, but by others more recently; namely, what is Babe Ruth's rookie card? You expressly posted on the "Questionable HOF rookies" thread that the m101-4/5 Ruth was not his rookie card, but when challenged to identify what Ruth's rookie card should be, you fell silent, much as you did when I asked you the same question some time back. Having then identified yourself as a hobby-oldtimer and implying that you had this vast knowledge of how real collectors perceive the m101-4/5 rookie to be a fabrication of money-grubbing dealers in the late 90's, you failed to fortify the board's knowledge base by imparting your wisdom on the subject. Please tell us the Ruth Rookie card; I mean, how can we hope to grow and attain the proper level of understanding when we can't even get the Ruth rookie right? Share, pretty please.

[porkchops]

NO ... Never ...... Nuff Said

[jason.1969]

I would put Rose in the Hall. I tend to see Rose's gambling as the manifestation of a disease and addiction (see DSM V - Gambling Disorder), and this makes it hard for me to condemn him.

[bnorth]

I vote to never let Pete in the Hall even if he buys a ticket. I also believe that anybody that tries to use the excuse of "I have a disease or addiction" should have their sentence doubled for being an idiot.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I owe you no answers to any of your questions. The banishment for throwing games was around for 40 years. It was not an eye-opening, unprecedented punishment, nor were the players at any time deluding themselves into thinking there would be no repercussions if they threw ballgames. That was the point throughout my exchange with Chris. If you don't get that, that's just too damn bad.

I will let others more familiar with specific player investigations or scandals speak to those, as I do not profess to be an expert on all things baseball gambling--apparently you are. I know that the Speaker-Cobb incident came to light after Landis was appointed, that both were released by their teams and retired shortly thereafter. It could not in any way be said that the Black Sox looked to that example as some sort of precedent that they could away with fixing their games or avoid banishment-- they would not have been aware of it or its fallout.

I would offer that Judge Landis’ edict in the early 20's may have clarified things, but that it again it had no impact on the what the Eight Men Out had done. Landis declared a one-year punishment for those who bet on other people’s baseball games, and a lifetime ban for those who bet on their own games in which they had a duty to perform. Of course the scandals of the past that had rocked public confidence centered on fixing games and deliberately losing. Landis made it clear that betting on any baseball was punishable for a year, and that betting even on your own team to win was worthy of lifetime banishment–perhaps those things had not been made clear before; again, I’m not the historian here. Either way and again, the penalty for fixing a game or series–deliberately losing– had been made known for years and was clear.

Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you answered one put to you not only by me previously, but by others more recently; namely, what is Babe Ruth's rookie card? You expressly posted on the "Questionable HOF rookies" thread that the m101-4/5 Ruth was not his rookie card, but when challenged to identify what Ruth's rookie card should be, you fell silent, much as you did when I asked you the same question some time back. Having then identified yourself as a hobby-oldtimer and implying that you had this vast knowledge of how real collectors perceive the m101-4/5 rookie to be a fabrication of money-grubbing dealers in the late 90's, you failed to fortify the board's knowledge base by imparting your wisdom on the subject. Please tell us the Ruth Rookie card; I mean, how can we hope to grow and attain the proper level of understanding when we can't even get the Ruth rookie right? Share, pretty please.

If you won't answer my questions, why should I answer yours? You owe me no answers? I guess that's because you can't admit that you are wrong.

[nolemmings]

Ah, rats, rats. Where's your answer for the rest of the board? Seems a little petty on your part to keep your vast knowledge from them. At least I made several attempts to answer your questions, and some who are not as thick as a brick might even think I did answer them, or at least offer an explanation. The question to you about the Ruth rookie is really straightforward. It's truly against the spirit of this forum, at least IMHO, to keep such vital information to yourself. An opportunity lost--very disappointing.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I vote to never let Pete in the Hall even if he buys a ticket. I also believe that anybody that tries to use the excuse of "I have a disease or addiction" should have their sentence doubled for being an idiot.

If it's an excuse, then I'd call BS on him. However, I believe it's reality in Pete's case, so I try to maintain compassion for him.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

He may have to buy a ticket like you for now but he still has 4,256 more major league hits than me and you combined! He was a machine. I'm a Red Sox fan and I grew up loving Pete Rose and the way he played the game. He bled Red and was lightning in a bottle. He will be getting in the Hall for Free at some point in the next 5 years. Bank on it!

Peace, Mike

I bleed red too... I actually have never met anyone that didn't bleed red

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I loved Pete Rose as a kid; even wrote a fan letter and got a signed photo. But he did it. The Dowd Report documented his alleged bets on 52 Reds games in 1987.

The rule is crystal clear: "Rule 21 Misconduct, (d) Betting on Ball Games, 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."

Rose repeatedly admitted he broke that rule. In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted to betting on Reds games. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. In March 2007, during an interview on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, Rose said, "I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team," he said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

So, Rose admittedly broke the one rule that calls for the 'death penalty' in baseball. He is properly permanently ineligible for a position in baseball. But the HOF was not part of that regime. On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted formally to exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame by way of the Baseball Writers Association of America vote. He would have been eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee in 2007, but did not appear on the ballot. In 2008 the Veterans Committee barred players and managers on the ineligible list from consideration.

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 think you answered your own questions. He didn't make the ballot even when he could have. So to think that he would make the ballot even if he was reinstated seems presumptuous. Even Joe Jackson received only 2 votes in two separate HOF votes and didn't get in. Even without the written rule, voters still don't vote for people they don't agree with getting in (PED users is another example).

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

If it's an excuse, then I'd call BS on him. However, I believe it's reality in Pete's case, so I try to maintain compassion for him.

If he was addicted to gambling, then he should have gambled in a way that didn't get him banished from baseball.

Regarding the Speaker/Cobb/Wood gambling thing - I am not sure what Landis was thinking, but my guess has always been that he thought banishing such huge names shortly after the Black Sox embarrassment, would have been too much for Major League baseball to handle. <=== purely speculation on my part, so no need for a new flame war

Back to Rose. It's been said, but if he does get reinstated, he would probably not be voted into the Hall. HOF voting has a human aspect to it that has nothing to do with stats or with laws. The Commissioner doesn't have to pay attention to any real laws or any perceived laws or rules that we might have, and either to the HOF voters. If you are disliked for any reason, even just having a bad personality, there are those who won't vote for you. If the 'mood' of the voters at the time is that some aspect of behavior is not Hall-worthy;e.g-suspected steroid use, then there are those who won't vote for you.