PDA

View Full Version : More garbage from De Luca


BigPapaPump
06-18-2009, 11:41 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/1628368,CST-SPT-deluca18.article

Somebody besides Greg Maddux has to get into the Hall of Fame over the next 20 years.

What about Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Ken Griffey Jr.? I know there's more, but to only suggest that another Cubs player is the only clean player is absurd.:puking:

Keep the cheaters out of the Hall, strip them of any titles, especially Giambi and give Thomas the MVP award he should have gotten.

Jim Shorts
06-18-2009, 11:47 AM
DeLuca has been on the slow road of losing me for the past couple of years. If he's sending Shammy Sosa to the hall, then I'm done with him.

He and Mike Imrem should get together and go bowling.

spawn
06-18-2009, 11:51 AM
I think the article is spot on. :shrug:

voodoochile
06-18-2009, 12:03 PM
I think the article is spot on. :shrug:

I disagree. It simply takes reevaluating our perceptions to the way they once were. Guys like Frank, Thome and Griffey all of a sudden get elevated up the all time HR list once you take out the cheaters and hitting 500 HR once again means something special (as it has all throughout baseball history until the juicers came along). Once upon a time there were other credentials aside from hitting HR that people evaluated in terms of HOF worthiness. Bring those standards back. Put an asterisk beside every guy on the HR list it can be proven used the roids and it solves the problem just as well and this time the asterisk actually means something. The numbers count, but are tainted and thus not worthy of recognition in the HOF.

If they hadn't cheated some of these guys might have got in anyway, Bonds and ARod come immediately to mind, but let them be judged for their worthiness by the guys who cast the votes as always. I doubt Sosa gets in without the juice. I just don't think he had the raw ability to be HOF worthy and if he did then he screwed himself by cheating to inflate his numbers. Would he have hit 500 HR without the juice? Maybe, but who kinows? Maybe he'd have stopped swinging so hard and become a contact hitter, putting up better averages, hitting more doubles and triples and striking out a lot less. Lots of guys have gotten in doing those things.

Maybe we stop the DH hating and put in Baines when we realize his numbers are worthy and clean.

Lot's of possibilities for putting other people in, don't need to include the guys we know were at the heart of the juicing problem...

mantis1212
06-18-2009, 12:09 PM
He uses the fact that the numbers still count as a reason to send him to the Hall, but I say that is the reason NOT to send them to the Hall.

These players that cheated have to be punished somehow. Since the record books cannot be changed, the only way to punish them and remember what happened is to keep them out of the Hall.

He asks if you can't vote for Sammy, who can you vote for? I think that's a bull**** argument- you have to go with the innocent until proven guilty mentality. Sammy was proven guilty, period.

Frank, Thome, Griffey, Maddux, Glavine (and others I missed)- until some evidence shows up they juiced, they're in.

McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, Manny, Arod- proof exists they cheated- they're out, period.

asindc
06-18-2009, 12:25 PM
He uses the fact that the numbers still count as a reason to send him to the Hall, but I say that is the reason NOT to send them to the Hall.

These players that cheated have to be punished somehow. Since the record books cannot be changed, the only way to punish them and remember what happened is to keep them out of the Hall.

He asks if you can't vote for Sammy, who can you vote for? I think that's a bull**** argument- you have to go with the innocent until proven guilty mentality. Sammy was proven guilty, period.

Frank, Thome, Griffey, Maddux, Glavine (and others I missed)- until some evidence shows up they juiced, they're in.

McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, Manny, Arod- proof exists they cheated- they're out, period.

Without debating the merits of this stance, it does make me wonder what should be done with the cheaters that are already in the HOF, like Gaylord Perry, who admitted on national TV that he regularly cheated and even joked about it.

Dick Allen
06-18-2009, 12:30 PM
Chris DeLuca is another member of the Sun-Times Cubbie cheerleading squad, so take whatever he has to say with a grain of salt.

mantis1212
06-18-2009, 12:32 PM
Without debating the merits of this stance, it does make me wonder what should be done with the cheaters that are already in the HOF, like Gaylord Perry, who admitted on national TV that he regularly cheated and even joked about it.

My opinion is what's done is done. Also, the damage done by Gaylord Perry's cheating is dwarfed by the damage done by Bonds, Sosa, Clemens in this era.

Some may ask "Where do you draw the line?". I say right here.

spawn
06-18-2009, 12:34 PM
I disagree. It simply takes reevaluating our perceptions to the way they once were. Guys like Frank, Thome and Griffey all of a sudden get elevated up the all time HR list once you take out the cheaters and hitting 500 HR once again means something special (as it has all throughout baseball history until the juicers came along). Once upon a time there were other credentials aside from hitting HR that people evaluated in terms of HOF worthiness. Bring those standards back. Put an asterisk beside every guy on the HR list it can be proven used the roids and it solves the problem just as well and this time the asterisk actually means something. The numbers count, but are tainted and thus not worthy of recognition in the HOF.

If they hadn't cheated some of these guys might have got in anyway, Bonds and ARod come immediately to mind, but let them be judged for their worthiness by the guys who cast the votes as always. I doubt Sosa gets in without the juice. I just don't think he had the raw ability to be HOF worthy and if he did then he screwed himself by cheating to inflate his numbers. Would he have hit 500 HR without the juice? Maybe, but who kinows? Maybe he'd have stopped swinging so hard and become a contact hitter, putting up better averages, hitting more doubles and triples and striking out a lot less. Lots of guys have gotten in doing those things.

Maybe we stop the DH hating and put in Baines when we realize his numbers are worthy and clean.

Lot's of possibilities for putting other people in, don't need to include the guys we know were at the heart of the juicing problem...

For the record, I want to say that I don't believe these guys should be inducted. However, I have no problem with them getting in as it is cause and effect of 1. Not having a drug policy in place and 2. Turning away and ignoring what was clearly happening because of the money being brought in. I find those in the media a bit hypocritical for turning their noses up now, when it was painfully obvious this had been going on for some time. People want to crucify the players involved because the ofensive numbers are so gaudy, but there were probably more pitchers taking PED's than position players.

I think the worst thing about this whole deal are they players that were clean throughout their careers are now shrouded in doubt. I don't believe Frank, Griffey, nor Thome used PED's, but would anyone here be shocked if any of their names were on a list somehwere? I wouldn't. ARod being on the list was the last straw for me. For me, it's a matter of the chickens coming home to roost. Let them in. Let all of the cheaters in. The MLBPA and Bud Selig deserve it.

Luke
06-18-2009, 12:49 PM
His arguments are pretty lame.

The numbers still count so he should be in? So if Bud Selig were to come out tomorrow and vacate all of Sosa's numbers, then he isn't good enough for the hall of fame? It doesn't change any facts. He still got caught cheating twice. If you feel that he's good enough for the Hall even if he cheated then what difference does it make?

The statement about Maddox being the only one in the last 20 years to get in is intentionally ignorant. Let's say that he's being hyperbolic, and knows there's several other people that are going to get in. Who says there has to be a certain amount of players getting in?

I'm guessing it won't matter. He'll get left off of A LOT if not most ballots and will go away. Fans are allowed to be forgiving because they're fans. Hall of Fame voters should be professional about it.

ChiSoxFan81
06-18-2009, 01:14 PM
If it becomes acceptable to induct KNOWN steroid users like Sosa, A-Fraud, and Bonds into the HOF, then I fully expect to see Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in the Hall. I'm tired of all these arguments about steroids being entertaining and "everyone did it". Bull. If there are only a handfull of deserving guys to get in for the next decade, so be it. There shouldn't be a mandatory induction every year just for the sake of doing it.

spawn
06-18-2009, 01:21 PM
If it becomes acceptable to induct KNOWN steroid users like Sosa, A-Fraud, and Bonds into the HOF, then I fully expect to see Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in the Hall. I'm tired of all these arguments about steroids being entertaining and "everyone did it". Bull. If there are only a handfull of deserving guys to get in for the next decade, so be it. There shouldn't be a mandatory induction every year just for the sake of doing it.
In my opinion, this is the main argument DeLuca presents. Baseball came down hard on gamblers and made it known that if you gamble on baseball, you will be dealt with accordingly, by being banned from the game. Bud Selig hasn't done this for steroid users, and judging from his comments that Deluca quoted in the article, he's not going to. In his eyes, he's already dealt with. He seems to be taking taking McGwire's testimony to Congress to heart with his whole "what's past is past" attitude.

ChiSoxFan81
06-18-2009, 01:32 PM
More fodder for the trash receptacle:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/18/martin.baseball.steroid/index.html

southside rocks
06-18-2009, 01:38 PM
More fodder for the trash receptacle:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/18/martin.baseball.steroid/index.html

What drivel. He's sick of hearing about it, so make it go away.

Baseball spent a decade, if not more, in the slimy swamp of steroid use. It won't be "over" in a month. And the fact that names of CURRENT PLAYERS have been mentioned as juicers makes me think that we should not be in such a hurry to sweep this under the rug and "move on" (which is code for "pretend it never happened").

In my ideal world: first failed drug test gets a player a one-year suspension from Major League Baseball. Go away. Not even allowed in the clubhouse. You're a non-person for 365 days.

Second failed test: you're kicked out of baseball and your records are expunged. You never existed. Nobody can vote you into the Hall because you have no records, no numbers.

That's MY version of the "it never happened" game.

mantis1212
06-18-2009, 01:51 PM
What drivel. He's sick of hearing about it, so make it go away.

Baseball spent a decade, if not more, in the slimy swamp of steroid use. It won't be "over" in a month. And the fact that names of CURRENT PLAYERS have been mentioned as juicers makes me think that we should not be in such a hurry to sweep this under the rug and "move on" (which is code for "pretend it never happened").

In my ideal world: first failed drug test gets a player a one-year suspension from Major League Baseball. Go away. Not even allowed in the clubhouse. You're a non-person for 365 days.

Second failed test: you're kicked out of baseball and your records are expunged. You never existed. Nobody can vote you into the Hall because you have no records, no numbers.

That's MY version of the "it never happened" game.

That's an interesting idea.

Imagine looking in some sports almanac at a box score and one spot in the lineup says EXPELLED PLAYER 2-4, one run, etc..

BigPapaPump
06-18-2009, 02:22 PM
What drivel. He's sick of hearing about it, so make it go away.

Baseball spent a decade, if not more, in the slimy swamp of steroid use. It won't be "over" in a month. And the fact that names of CURRENT PLAYERS have been mentioned as juicers makes me think that we should not be in such a hurry to sweep this under the rug and "move on" (which is code for "pretend it never happened").

In my ideal world: first failed drug test gets a player a one-year suspension from Major League Baseball. Go away. Not even allowed in the clubhouse. You're a non-person for 365 days.

Second failed test: you're kicked out of baseball and your records are expunged. You never existed. Nobody can vote you into the Hall because you have no records, no numbers.

That's MY version of the "it never happened" game.

:clap: :yup:

TornLabrum
06-18-2009, 03:33 PM
In my opinion, this is the main argument DeLuca presents. Baseball came down hard on gamblers and made it known that if you gamble on baseball, you will be dealt with accordingly, by being banned from the game. Bud Selig hasn't done this for steroid users, and judging from his comments that Deluca quoted in the article, he's not going to. In his eyes, he's already dealt with. He seems to be taking taking McGwire's testimony to Congress to heart with his whole "what's past is past" attitude.

The big flaw in DeLuca's argument is that Selig can't come down hard on steroid users the way Landis did on the gambling element. Steroid use, testing, and penalties have to be negotiated with the players union. He couldn't come down hard on them (or at least any harder than the rules provide for) if he wanted to.

UChicagoHP
06-18-2009, 04:26 PM
The big flaw in DeLuca's argument is that Selig can't come down hard on steroid users the way Landis did on the gambling element. Steroid use, testing, and penalties have to be negotiated with the players union. He couldn't come down hard on them (or at least any harder than the rules provide for) if he wanted to.

It sucks that this is the case, but the MLBPA has all the power. The only thing that can really be done at this point in time is simply denying the cheaters a spot in the HOF.

I'm all for a 1 year suspension for the first failed test(ala the Olympics...and I'm also for Olympic style drug testing as well). Two strikes and you're done with the game of baseball, at least at the MLB level. Of course, this will never happen due to the MLBPA. Not too mention the fact that the players, due to the insane money they make/access to the best science money can buy, will always be one step ahead of the testing programs. It really is a lost cause, too much money can be made with a little help from a needle. Either allow PED use, or take a ridiculously hard line against it. There shouldn't be any middle ground...

Nellie_Fox
06-19-2009, 01:29 AM
You can't expunge the records of the juicers. It starts a chain reaction. The pitcher says, "hey, that three-run home run he hit off of me is now gone from the record books. It doesn't exist. It should be subtracted from my ERA, and without it I'd have had a win that game, so change my record while you're at it."

southside rocks
06-19-2009, 07:53 AM
You can't expunge the records of the juicers. It starts a chain reaction. The pitcher says, "hey, that three-run home run he hit off of me is now gone from the record books. It doesn't exist. It should be subtracted from my ERA, and without it I'd have had a win that game, so change my record while you're at it."

I know, my brilliant plan bit the dust when the other poster mentioned what box scores would look like. :D: I confess I hadn't thought of that.

Okay, then the equivalent of expungement: second test failed, you are out of baseball and ineligible for any honors of any kind at any time. Pete Rose treatment. Your numbers exist, but they bring you no glory.

Oblong
06-19-2009, 08:49 AM
When he says "Maddux can't be the only one from the last 20 years to get in" is he saying that the Cubs need to have more than one HOF member? Or is he making a comment about baseball overall, implying that maddux is the only clean one?

If he thinks Maddux can't be the only cub for the last 20 years, I wonder if he ever voted for Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, or Jack Morris? Seeing as franchises need to be represented by more than one player every 20 years or so.... Did he vote for Harold Baines? Carlton Fisk?

That line really through me off. The rest of his column is thought provoking and good for discussion but then he just uses dumb logic at the end that ruins the whole thing.

Oblong
06-19-2009, 08:53 AM
You can't expunge the records of the juicers. It starts a chain reaction. The pitcher says, "hey, that three-run home run he hit off of me is now gone from the record books. It doesn't exist. It should be subtracted from my ERA, and without it I'd have had a win that game, so change my record while you're at it."

I agree. And without complete knowledge then the exercise is futile. What if the pitcher juiced? Do the hitters than get to get some strikeouts erased?

Is it limited to just HR? What about doubles that may have normally been a pop out without the juice? What about pop outs that without the extra strength may have fallen between the IF and OF? Do we add those back?

It's a self imposed stain on the game that will have to remain there for history to see.

DSpivack
06-19-2009, 11:57 AM
When he says "Maddux can't be the only one from the last 20 years to get in" is he saying that the Cubs need to have more than one HOF member? Or is he making a comment about baseball overall, implying that maddux is the only clean one?

If he thinks Maddux can't be the only cub for the last 20 years, I wonder if he ever voted for Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, or Jack Morris? Seeing as franchises need to be represented by more than one player every 20 years or so.... Did he vote for Harold Baines? Carlton Fisk?

That line really through me off. The rest of his column is thought provoking and good for discussion but then he just uses dumb logic at the end that ruins the whole thing.

I took that line to mean Maddux can't be the only one in MLB in that time span to be a HOF. Why he throws out everyone else because it was a cheater's era and yet has Maddux in, I don't know. I guess he's a big Braves fan.

forrestg
06-19-2009, 01:29 PM
nobody ever likes this but how many of us have watched the olympics from many years passed. How many time in the last 20 years have we seen different countries' athletes being caught using steroids etc. Football players like Lyle Alzedo died from the effects of steroid use. We watched the average weight of football players drop when pro football decided to crackdown. The last to see any problem with steroids was the MLB. Not all of us are born with a god given ability to be super athletes. Some super athletes wanted to be even better. There was no one monitoring athletes usage so many athletes did use peds. 103 cases when Rodriguez and Sosa were tested so what percentage is that of active baseball players. It seems to me that there was many players weren't trying to get an edge they were just trying to keep up. Take Barry Bonds as one person put it had a great eye for hitting a baseball adding steroids wouldn't increase his reflexes but might have made his warning track hits, homeruns. We can't go on conjecture of who did use them or who didn't during a time in which usage was uncontrolled. I say what we can do is to insure that mlb has a stringent enforced drug program in place and personally put our own asterisks where we feel they should be and let this whole past mlb guessing game to rest.

WhiteSoxFTW
06-19-2009, 01:44 PM
I think the article is spot on. :shrug:

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp

De Luca needs to read the Rules for Election by the Baseball Writer's of America...especially rule #5. Career statistics is not the only parameter taken into effect. Writers have to take into account the player's integrity, sportsmanship, and character when voting. That is why Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame and that is why Sammy Sosa should NOT be elected. Sammy has no integrity and has shown a lack of character. Not only did he cheat with a corked bat and allegedly with steroids (will be proven, I'm sure), but he was dishonest to his fans and to Congress.

He is a disgrace.

Big D
06-19-2009, 01:48 PM
Forget about the records. Only a small handful of the juicers are going to be in a position to set records. You really think someone like Pablo Ozuna is going to care about their statistics being wiped out? If you really want to punish them, void their contracts when they test positive. The reason most players take steroids is to make more money, whether they're an All-Star or a AAA player trying to stick in the big leagues for a few years to get a pension. Suspend them for a year and void their contracts on the first positive test, and ban them for life on the second test.

PatK
06-19-2009, 01:48 PM
If you're going to punish one, punish all.

mantis1212
06-19-2009, 02:04 PM
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp

De Luca needs to read the Rules for Election by the Baseball Writer's of America...especially rule #5. Career statistics is not the only parameter taken into effect. Writers have to take into account the player's integrity, sportsmanship, and character when voting. That is why Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame and that is why Sammy Sosa should NOT be elected. Sammy has no integrity and has shown a lack of character. Not only did he cheat with a corked bat and allegedly with steroids (will be proven, I'm sure), but he was dishonest to his fans and to Congress.

He is a disgrace.

The impracticality of expunged records and this rule #5 you refer to makes me believe that the end result of this era will be lots of records and lots of missing players from the hall of fame.

They will forever be at the top of the home run list and 50 years from now whenever someones asks "Why are they not in the hall of fame?", they will have their answer.

This is their legacy, this is what they will be remembered for 50-100 years from now. I believe the writers will keep them out.

spawn
06-19-2009, 02:15 PM
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp

De Luca needs to read the Rules for Election by the Baseball Writer's of America...especially rule #5. Career statistics is not the only parameter taken into effect. Writers have to take into account the player's integrity, sportsmanship, and character when voting.
Please. the HOF is littered with unsavory individuals with no integrity, poor sportsmanship, and lack of character. Do you really think Ty Cobb is in the Hall because he was a stand up guy with great numbers? Babe Ruth was an alcoholic womanizer. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, period. They may not have cheated to get their numbers, but they weren't exactly upstanding individuals either. Their numbers far outweigh any other issues that may come into play.

eriqjaffe
06-19-2009, 02:22 PM
Do you really think Ty Cobb is in the Hall because he was a stand up guy with great numbers? Babe Ruth was an alcoholic womanizer. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, period. They may not have cheated to get their numbers, but they weren't exactly upstanding individuals either. Their numbers far outweigh any other issues that may come into play.But their character and integrity did not translate into doing questionable things to improve their game. Hell, boozing would most likely have a negative effect on their game.

spawn
06-19-2009, 02:32 PM
But their character and integrity did not translate into doing questionable things to improve their game. Hell, boozing would most likely have a negative effect on their game.
I mentioned that in my post. I'm just pointing out that character issues IMO have no bearing whatsoever in getting elected into the Hall. And please, I'm sure there are plenty of players in the hall who cheated. they may not have done steroids or used PED's, but you can't tell me every player in the Hall is guiltless as far as cheating goes. That would be pretty naive IMO.

mantis1212
06-19-2009, 02:42 PM
I think character issues have had some bearing, just not very much. Some have argued Ron Santo is out because of character issues, and Jim Rice took forever to get in because of character issues.

Anyway, this steroid HOF question really is unprecedented. Ballooning up from steriods and breaking all the home run records that exist in the history of baseball I believe will inspire HOF voters to consider this integrity and sportsmanship rule more closely.

Like I said earlier, the consequences of all this are much greater than Gaylord Perry throwing spitballs, Ty Cobb spiking shortstops or Babe Ruth drinking and womanizing.

This has damaged the game of baseball like nothing else since the Black Sox scandal in my opinion. We will now look at record books in this game and know they are a sham. The record books were a big, proud part of the game of baseball, and now they are a joke.

RedHeadPaleHoser
06-19-2009, 02:59 PM
This has damaged the game of baseball like nothing else since the Black Sox scandal in my opinion. We will now look at record books in this game and know they are a sham. The record books were a big, proud part of the game of baseball, and now they are a joke.

The game of baseball will survive. It re-invents itself to get past these types of misgivings.

WhiteSoxFTW
06-19-2009, 03:16 PM
Please. the HOF is littered with unsavory individuals with no integrity, poor sportsmanship, and lack of character. Do you really think Ty Cobb is in the Hall because he was a stand up guy with great numbers? Babe Ruth was an alcoholic womanizer. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, period. They may not have cheated to get their numbers, but they weren't exactly upstanding individuals either. Their numbers far outweigh any other issues that may come into play.

I did think of examples when I wrote that. I was speaking towards their integrity towards the game of baseball. Being an alcoholic has nothing to do with baseball...had they not been alcoholics, their numbers would most likely be better. I'm not saying numbers aren't the most important factor, but Sammy Sosa cheated by chemically enhancing his body and lied to everyone about it. Poor sportsmanship on the field is one thing, but poor sportsmanship by gaining an unfair physical advantage behind closed doors is another.

But their character and integrity did not translate into doing questionable things to improve their game. Hell, boozing would most likely have a negative effect on their game.

Thank you, you put what I was just trying to say above a lot more simply.

I mentioned that in my post. I'm just pointing out that character issues IMO have no bearing whatsoever in getting elected into the Hall. And please, I'm sure there are plenty of players in the hall who cheated. they may not have done steroids or used PED's, but you can't tell me every player in the Hall is guiltless as far as cheating goes. That would be pretty naive IMO.

Oh, I agree. Gaylord Perry, mentioned earlier, is a perfect example. There are a ton of players whos' careers were extended in the 80s and 90s due to the availability of amphetamines in the clubhouse. I remember Mully and Hanley talking about the "leaded" and "unleaded" pots of coffee there. But, one thing the BBWA cannot due is purge the hall and start over. What they can do is make a conscious effort going forward to uphold the original sanctity of the baseball Hall of Fame.

Nellie_Fox
06-20-2009, 02:37 AM
I mentioned that in my post. I'm just pointing out that character issues IMO have no bearing whatsoever in getting elected into the Hall. And please, I'm sure there are plenty of players in the hall who cheated. they may not have done steroids or used PED's, but you can't tell me every player in the Hall is guiltless as far as cheating goes. That would be pretty naive IMO.Actually, character is one of the written standards for admission to the HOF. Yes, there are cheaters in the Hall. Gaylord Perry should never have gotten in, because he was not only a cheater, but bragged about it. But just because he did doesn't mean that the character issue should never again be considered.

From the HOF web site (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp):

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.Emphasis added by me.

TDog
06-21-2009, 06:43 PM
If it becomes acceptable to induct KNOWN steroid users like Sosa, A-Fraud, and Bonds into the HOF, then I fully expect to see Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in the Hall. I'm tired of all these arguments about steroids being entertaining and "everyone did it". Bull. If there are only a handfull of deserving guys to get in for the next decade, so be it. There shouldn't be a mandatory induction every year just for the sake of doing it.

Baseball regards gambling issues to be more serious than performance-enhancing drugs. It still does.

When Joe Jackson was permanently suspended, there were no rules against what he did. One might correctly argue that there shouldn't have to be, but because there was no rule, there was no penalty attached. When Pete Rose did what he did, there were written, well-publicized rules that outlined permanent suspension -- banishment -- from baseball as the punishment.

When Sosa, McGwire, Bonds etc. (actually sportswriters have accused Frank Thomas because accusations are easy to make) did what they did, thee was no punishment outlined. Public outcry demanded punishment. The results were effective amnesty for all past violations and 50-game suspensions for future violations.

The Hall of Fame holds a higher standard, and certainly players linked to steroids (although Babe Ruth's possible performance-enhancing use of cocaine would be off the table as are documented amphetamine abuses in the 1960s) will have trouble getting elected. And, of course, Gaylord Perry had a reputation as a spitballer when he was in his prime. Being caught throwing spitballs wouldn't have led to a permanent suspension. But Pete Rose knew the punishment for what he did and did it anyway.

You can't compare such arrogant actions with people risking non-permanent suspensions in cheating to gain a competitive edge.

Daver
06-21-2009, 06:58 PM
The baseball HOF is a popularity contest, a joke, and has been for many years, I have more respect for a half eaten carrot than I do for the HOF.

TornLabrum
06-21-2009, 06:59 PM
When Joe Jackson was permanently suspended, there were no rules against what he did.

Gambling and throwing games has been outlawed by the major leagues at least since the 1877 when Jim Devlin and three other players for the Louisville team in the NL were blacklisted for throwing games and handing the pennant over to the Boston Red Caps.

TDog
06-21-2009, 07:37 PM
Gambling and throwing games has been outlawed by the major leagues at least since the 1877 when Jim Devlin and three other players for the Louisville team in the NL were blacklisted for throwing games and handing the pennant over to the Boston Red Caps.

Associating with gamblers wasn't outlawed, as it should have been. It was fairly common in baseball in the first two decades of the century for players to openly associate with gamblers in public.

Jackson wasn't blacklisted for throwing the World Series. Certainly Buck Weaver wasn't. Proof that they conspired to throw the World Series wasn't the standard that Landis required in handing down their permanent suspensions. It wasn't the standard that led to Pete Rose's lifetime suspension.

Oblong
06-21-2009, 07:50 PM
I hate to be nit picky but Pete doesn't have a lifetime suspension. He's on the permanently ineligible list. Just a minor thing I like to point out because I've heard people use the argument "Well when he dies he should be let back in since his life is over and it was a lifetime suspension." No. It's permanent. And just because he has the right to apply for reinstatement doesn't mean baseball has to even listen to him, let alone give him consideration. Pete's used that argument in the past. He seems to have been under the impression that after a year he'd be let back in. I've even heard one of his cronies say that Giammati had a verbal agreement to do that but since he died nobody knew about it. Talk about low class.

ChiSoxFan81
06-22-2009, 10:45 AM
Baseball regards gambling issues to be more serious than performance-enhancing drugs. It still does.

When Joe Jackson was permanently suspended, there were no rules against what he did. One might correctly argue that there shouldn't have to be, but because there was no rule, there was no penalty attached. When Pete Rose did what he did, there were written, well-publicized rules that outlined permanent suspension -- banishment -- from baseball as the punishment.

When Sosa, McGwire, Bonds etc. (actually sportswriters have accused Frank Thomas because accusations are easy to make) did what they did, thee was no punishment outlined. Public outcry demanded punishment. The results were effective amnesty for all past violations and 50-game suspensions for future violations.

The Hall of Fame holds a higher standard, and certainly players linked to steroids (although Babe Ruth's possible performance-enhancing use of cocaine would be off the table as are documented amphetamine abuses in the 1960s) will have trouble getting elected. And, of course, Gaylord Perry had a reputation as a spitballer when he was in his prime. Being caught throwing spitballs wouldn't have led to a permanent suspension. But Pete Rose knew the punishment for what he did and did it anyway.

You can't compare such arrogant actions with people risking non-permanent suspensions in cheating to gain a competitive edge.

I think what cost Rose more than anything was his unwillingness to come clean. There are still guys who have been reliably linked to PEDs who won't confess. If we are to allow any of the PED users into the HOF, then allow the ones who at least came out and admitted it (even though it was basically already proven anyways). Any argument that steroids were not against the rules of baseball is asinine. They are ILLEGAL to procure and use without a prescription in the US. The law supercedes any rules of the game.
I agree that the HOF has become somewhat of a joke. It's not the HOF's fault, but the fault of the voters. I don't know who was co-hosting with Hanley this morning on The Score, but he really got me riled up. He said he views the HOF as a museum that is basically a timeline for baseball. He's voted for McGwire, and said he'd vote for any juicer if they had the stats. That's a joke. There has to be some integrity. So many other athletic events (swimming, cycling, track, etc.) punish PED use appropriately. We can't just turn a blind eye to it. It's blatant cheating, and illegal. Comparing PEDs to throwing a spitter is apples to oranges. The HOF is not simply a timeline of baseball events. It's a place to learn about the greatest players and moments in baseball history. If it's simply a history museum, then let in Pete Rose and Joe Jackson too.

spawn
06-22-2009, 11:17 AM
Actually, character is one of the written standards for admission to the HOF. Yes, there are cheaters in the Hall. Gaylord Perry should never have gotten in, because he was not only a cheater, but bragged about it. But just because he did doesn't mean that the character issue should never again be considered.

From the HOF web site (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp):

Emphasis added by me.
I agree completely. My point is I don't believe the Baseball Writers take it into consideration. When discussing HOF ballots, I rarely hear them say they aren't voting someone in because of poor character or lack of moral standards.

asindc
06-22-2009, 02:48 PM
Back on topic. I still struggle with keeping current-day cheaters out, especially with circumstantial evidence against them at best, when there are known unabashed cheaters in the HOF who have never repented, let alone made to pay for their transgressions in a meaningful way.

There is talk that the writers who are on the Selection Committee might meet in St. Louis during the AS break to discuss formulating some guidelines on how to consider PED users.

spawn
06-22-2009, 02:54 PM
Back on topic. I still struggle with keeping current-day cheaters out, especially with circumstantial evidence against them at best, when there are known unabashed cheaters in the HOF who have never repented, let alone made to pay for their transgressions in a meaningful way.

Not that I agree that steroid users belong in the HOF, but I do agree that this argument makes it a tough decision to keep them out.

pilotsox
06-22-2009, 03:08 PM
Mod edit: it is against the posting rules to quote any part of a copywritten article.

Edit: My bad about the quote. But to sum the quote so my post makes sense, the paradox of baseball's hatred for gambling with it's silent acceptance of PEDs is frankly sickening.

This is what gets me. Pete Rose was a hard-nosed, admirable son-of-a-gun if there ever was one in this game. And most importantly, a great ballplayer. And yet, because he gambled, he is ineligible from baseball's highest honor. He even gambled on his own damn team, not against it as some of our players once did. Wouldn't one think that this would make him exert even more effort on his behalf? So he's banned, yet guys who inflate their bodies and put up massively fake numbers face a maximum of 50 games suspended.

Straight up, the Hall should not be about morals or personal integrity. Cap Anson was a bigot, but he played baseball like a HOFer. Ty Cobb was a thug, but he played baseball like a HOFer. Pete Rose was a gambler, but he played baseball like a HOFer. So put him in. If you were a natural great at this game, I don't care how much of an ******* you were. You belong in the Hall as I see it. But if you were not so much of a natural, and you felt the need to pad your stats through illegal drugs, or even if you were a natural who felt the need anyway (I'm looking at you, A-Rod and Barry), you are dead to me. Forever.

With all due respect to you guys, the punishments in this thread are lenient. On your first offense for performance enhancing drugs, your career should be over. Permanently. Period. Sorry, Pablo, but you made a bad decision and now you should have to live with it. There is no forgiveness. Your numbers cannot be expunged for previously mentioned reasons, but your honors (Giambi's 2000 MVP for instance) will be stripped and re-awarded to pure players. You will never play in the MLB again and your name will never tarnish baseball's holy site in Cooperstown.

Call me harsh or draconian. I will make no apologies for this. Sure, we will lose "stars" such as A-Rod and Manny, but there will be many to take their place. And this motion will serve a great purpose of deterrence. The new generations of players will see that the powers-that-be are not bull****ting around on this, and there will never be the temptation to juice as the risk will be too high. As it is now, some players will see a 50-game suspension as an acceptable risk for greater numbers. With a career banishment, the risk will outweight the benefits. And with enforced testing regulations in my ideal world, you WILL be caught.

Sadly, I know Bud Selig is too much of a coward, and the MLBPA is too powerful and corrupt for this to happen. But with any luck, soon the status quo will change and baseball's purity will be restored.

pilotsox
06-22-2009, 03:12 PM
On an optimistic note, while the permanent ban on the first offense might be a pipedream of my own invention, I think at the very least the BBWA will shun those tarnished by PEDs. This belief is encouraged by the fact that McGwire didn't even get a quarter of the votes on his first ballot.

I'd like the permanent ban to come into place, but being unofficially disavowed from enshrinement in the Hall makes things slightly more acceptable and tolerable.

spawn
06-22-2009, 03:15 PM
This is what gets me. Pete Rose was a hard-nosed, admirable son-of-a-gun if there ever was one in this game. And most importantly, a great ballplayer. And yet, because he gambled, he is ineligible from baseball's highest honor. He even gambled on his own damn team, not against it as some of our players once did. Wouldn't one think that this would make him exert even more effort on his behalf? So he's banned, yet guys who inflate their bodies and put up massively fake numbers face a maximum of 50 games suspended.

Sorry, but gambling has been the biggest sin in baseball since the Black Sox scandal. Pete Rose knew this. It's why he continued to deny he gambled (even if it was on his own team) because he knew the consequences of his actions. He knew he was wrong. To me, he's the coward for not confessing to it when he was caught, and only admitting to it when he thought he had a shot of getting into the HOF. He brought this on himself IMO.

southside rocks
06-22-2009, 03:18 PM
Back on topic. I still struggle with keeping current-day cheaters out, especially with circumstantial evidence against them at best, when there are known unabashed cheaters in the HOF who have never repented, let alone made to pay for their transgressions in a meaningful way.



I look at it a bit differently: I think if we let the wrong-headed guidelines that may have been used in the past prevail today, we might just as well continue all sorts of regrettable "traditions."

IOW, just because there are unsavory characters in the HOF does not mean that the future inductees should be of unsavory character. Failure to do the right thing just because previous generations did not do the right thing is still failure.

And Joe Cowley's blathering on WSCR this morning that the HOF is "just a museum" is nonsense. It's not the Hall of Baseball, it's more than that, and election to it is an honor bestowed on a few players. Cowley apparently is inclined to vote in some of the juicers; more proof (if more was needed) that he's a sap and a twit.

pilotsox
06-22-2009, 03:21 PM
Sorry, but gambling has been the biggest sin in baseball since the Black Sox scandal. Pete Rose knew this. It's why he continued to deny he gambled (even if it was on his own team) because he knew the consequences of his actions. He knew he was wrong. To me, he's the coward for not confessing to it when he was caught, and only admitting to it when he thought he had a shot of getting into the HOF. he brought this on himself IMO.

The Black Sox bet against themselves. Pete Rose bet for himself, which would increase his motivation to win. It might not be the most kosher thing to do, but it doesn't merit the punishment he was given. Especially when you consider the other unsavory types who have made it into the Hall.

The only types I would keep out of the Hall are those who felt a need to inflate their numbers with unnatural and illegal substances.

Racists = in
Thugs = in
Gamblers = in
Juicers = OUT

Daver
06-22-2009, 03:26 PM
With all due respect to you guys, the punishments in this thread are lenient. On your first offense for performance enhancing drugs, your career should be over. Permanently. Period. Sorry, Pablo, but you made a bad decision and now you should have to live with it. There is no forgiveness. Your numbers cannot be expunged for previously mentioned reasons, but your honors (Giambi's 2000 MVP for instance) will be stripped and re-awarded to pure players. You will never play in the MLB again and your name will never tarnish baseball's holy site in Cooperstown.


So do you kick all the guys that used speed in the sixties out of the hall and expunge their numbers from the record books?

It's Dankerific
06-22-2009, 03:29 PM
The Black Sox bet against themselves. Pete Rose bet for himself, which would increase his motivation to win. It might not be the most kosher thing to do, but it doesn't merit the punishment he was given. Especially when you consider the other unsavory types who have made it into the Hall.

The only types I would keep out of the Hall are those who felt a need to inflate their numbers with unnatural and illegal substances.

Racists = in
Thugs = in
Gamblers = in
Juicers = OUT

But when Rose would NOT bet for his team, that meant he didn't think they would win (basically an insider knowing more info that the public.) His bookies could then alter their odds and profit by using the information of when he bet and didn't bet on the team.

Its more than just increasing his own motivation.

asindc
06-22-2009, 03:30 PM
On an optimistic note, while the permanent ban on the first offense might be a pipedream of my own invention, I think at the very least the BBWA will shun those tarnished by PEDs. This belief is encouraged by the fact that McGwire didn't even get a quarter of the votes on his first ballot.

I'd like the permanent ban to come into place, but being unofficially disavowed from enshrinement in the Hall makes things slightly more acceptable and tolerable.

While I generally agree with your point, I think he is an iffy case to begin with, which might be contributing to his low numbers.

pilotsox
06-22-2009, 03:32 PM
So do you kick all the guys that used speed in the sixties out of the hall and expunge their numbers from the record books?

I didn't advocate expunging records. I am against it for the previously stated argument about the chain reactions it would cause. And as I was only born in 1987, I personally missed the speed phase. Can I ask what it does for a baseball player? What benefits does it add to a player's ability?

And as a rule of thumb, my policy would start now. If you're a PED user and you're not in the Hall yet, you're ****ed. But if you already made it in, oh well. I wouldn't be kicking anyone out of the Hall. But I would be slamming the gate shut to juicers immediately.

Daver
06-22-2009, 03:37 PM
I didn't advocate expunging records. I am against it for the previously stated argument about the chain reactions it would cause. And as I was only born in 1987, I personally missed the speed phase. Can I ask what it does for a baseball player? What benefits does it add to a player's ability?

And as a rule of thumb, my policy would start now. If you're a PED user and you're not in the Hall yet, you're ****ed. But if you already made it in, oh well. I wouldn't be kicking anyone out of the Hall. But I would be slamming the gate shut to juicers immediately.

So having a double standard is OK in your eyes? Drugs were OK in the sixties but not at the present time? The Baseball HOF process is already more screwed up than a soup sandwich, and you want to complicate it even further?

pilotsox
06-22-2009, 03:39 PM
So having a double standard is OK in your eyes? Drugs were OK in the sixties but not at the present time? The Baseball HOF process is already more screwed up than a soup sandwich, and you want to complicate it even further?

I'm still wondering what speed does for a ballplayer's ability. Because I'm only concerned about drugs that increase a player's talent unnaturally. A player can use all the coke, speed and weed he wants; but if they don't increase the player's ability and turn him into something he's not, I really don't care.

Daver
06-22-2009, 03:45 PM
I'm still wondering what speed does for a ballplayer's ability. Because I'm only concerned about drugs that increase a player's talent unnaturally. A player can use all the coke, speed and weed he wants; but if they don't increase the player's ability and turn him into something he's not, I really don't care.


Do some research on the benefits of aphetemines in athletics, I don't have time to search for links right now. Jim Bouton's book is also a good refference.

spawn
06-22-2009, 03:49 PM
I'm still wondering what speed does for a ballplayer's ability. Because I'm only concerned about drugs that increase a player's talent unnaturally. A player can use all the coke, speed and weed he wants; but if they don't increase the player's ability and turn him into something he's not, I really don't care.

Do some research on the benefits of aphetemines in athletics, I don't have time to search for links right now. Jim Bouton's book is also a good refference.
I did a quick search and found this:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU36.html

I'm sure if you researched harder, you could find a more detailed source.

Oblong
06-22-2009, 03:53 PM
Whether Pete bet on his own team to win or lose is completely irrelevant. How do you think he'd handle his pitchers tonight when he's got action vs tomorrow when he's decided to lay off? What if he decided to do it series by series? Don't you think he'd manage differently?

I'm still wondering what speed does for a ballplayer's ability. Because I'm only concerned about drugs that increase a player's talent unnaturally. A player can use all the coke, speed and weed he wants; but if they don't increase the player's ability and turn him into something he's not, I really don't care.

When you are tired and sluggish from a night out partying and don't feel like playing then they perk you up in an unnatural way. No, they do not give you muscles and strength but I don't see the differences.

And before we annoint the previous generation of players as being above board with regard to using steroids.... it was a common belief until the late 80s that having a lot of muscle was bad for you as a player. If they knew using steroids would help them then they would have done it too. It's not like they weren't available. They just didn't know any better.

Eddo144
06-22-2009, 04:23 PM
Whether Pete bet on his own team to win or lose is completely irrelevant. How do you think he'd handle his pitchers tonight when he's got action vs tomorrow when he's decided to lay off? What if he decided to do it series by series? Don't you think he'd manage differently?
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Excellent points, Oblong.

And I'm sure Pete had dozens of buddies scattered throughout baseball at the time he was betting on games. Him betting on any of those games could conceivably have had an impact, if one of his friends decided to go easy or something.

When you are tired and sluggish from a night out partying and don't feel like playing then they perk you up in an unnatural way. No, they do not give you muscles and strength but I don't see the differences.

And before we annoint the previous generation of players as being above board with regard to using steroids.... it was a common belief until the late 80s that having a lot of muscle was bad for you as a player. If they knew using steroids would help them then they would have done it too. It's not like they weren't available. They just didn't know any better.
Right. Bill Simmons, of all people, even put up an article going over all the previous eras of baseball showing how they were far from "pure". Much of the steroids outrage seems like righteous indignation by writers who just like attention.

Daver
06-22-2009, 07:49 PM
And before we annoint the previous generation of players as being above board with regard to using steroids.... it was a common belief until the late 80s that having a lot of muscle was bad for you as a player. If they knew using steroids would help them then they would have done it too. It's not like they weren't available. They just didn't know any better.


There is also the fact that the fingerpointing that goes on about steroids is almost exclusively done with hitters as the target, when the reality of the situation are that far more pitchers have been caught using steroids than hitters. Do we hold the the numbers recorded by "clean" hitters in higher regard because they faced pitchers that were using PED's? Where exactly do you draw the line?

The selection process for the baseball HOF is an absolute joke, and has been for as long as I have been on this Earth, but at least it has been a consistent absolute joke, I would hate to see that changed unless the change was for the better.

munchman33
06-22-2009, 08:02 PM
This is what gets me. Pete Rose was a hard-nosed, admirable son-of-a-gun if there ever was one in this game. And most importantly, a great ballplayer. And yet, because he gambled, he is ineligible from baseball's highest honor. He even gambled on his own damn team, not against it as some of our players once did. Wouldn't one think that this would make him exert even more effort on his behalf? So he's banned, yet guys who inflate their bodies and put up massively fake numbers face a maximum of 50 games suspended.


Ummm....You realize that argument is bull**** unless he bet on them everyday, and the same amount of money everyday, right? Because otherwise it affects who he's pitching in different situations.

pilotsox
06-22-2009, 08:35 PM
Ummm....You realize that argument is bull**** unless he bet on them everyday, and the same amount of money everyday, right? Because otherwise it affects who he's pitching in different situations.

Did he ever bet directly against his team? If the Reds were playing, say, the Astros, did he ever put money on the Astros? Because unless he did, he's not being a detriment to his team or his managerial duties in any way. He might not have the added motivation of fighting for financial profit, but he still had all of his basic motivation. The only way he wouldn't have that is if he put money on the Reds' opponents, which would be the equivalent of throwing games.

Basically, the Rose haters here are saying that declining to bet on the Reds on a certain day is the same as betting against the Reds. And that's not true. Unlike the Black Sox, Rose never put down bets that would cause him to go out and intentionally lose a game. And as such, I refuse to hold it against him.

Daver
06-22-2009, 09:58 PM
Did he ever bet directly against his team? If the Reds were playing, say, the Astros, did he ever put money on the Astros? Because unless he did, he's not being a detriment to his team or his managerial duties in any way. He might not have the added motivation of fighting for financial profit, but he still had all of his basic motivation. The only way he wouldn't have that is if he put money on the Reds' opponents, which would be the equivalent of throwing games.

Basically, the Rose haters here are saying that declining to bet on the Reds on a certain day is the same as betting against the Reds. And that's not true. Unlike the Black Sox, Rose never put down bets that would cause him to go out and intentionally lose a game. And as such, I refuse to hold it against him.

It doesn't matter what you think, it is posted in every clubhouse in MLB, betting on baseball will result in permanent ineligibilty from baseball, it has been thus for years, and they include all of Pete Rose's career.

TDog
06-22-2009, 10:13 PM
Did he ever bet directly against his team? If the Reds were playing, say, the Astros, did he ever put money on the Astros? Because unless he did, he's not being a detriment to his team or his managerial duties in any way. He might not have the added motivation of fighting for financial profit, but he still had all of his basic motivation. The only way he wouldn't have that is if he put money on the Reds' opponents, which would be the equivalent of throwing games.

Basically, the Rose haters here are saying that declining to bet on the Reds on a certain day is the same as betting against the Reds. And that's not true. Unlike the Black Sox, Rose never put down bets that would cause him to go out and intentionally lose a game. And as such, I refuse to hold it against him.

That is not true. If he doesn't have money on a game and he plans to have money on the next game because of the pitching matchup, bullpen management decisions may have a direct relationship on how he is betting. He might rest a key player when he doesn't have money on the game. Putting down a bet on Tuesday's game could lead him to make decisions that would cause him to lose Monday's game.

Even if it were true, Pete Rose knew that the penalty for betting on baseball in any way shape or form would be a permanent suspension. It is irrelevant if he is betting on his team to win or if he is betting on his team.

What he did was in violation of baseball rules that he was fully aware of. It isn't a rule that can get you suspended for 50 games. It's a rule that can get you suspended permanently. He knew that. He did it anyway.

FielderJones
06-22-2009, 11:57 PM
Unlike the Black Sox, Rose never put down bets that would cause him to go out and intentionally lose a game. And as such, I refuse to hold it against him.

Which 1919 White Sox put down bets against their team? With references, please.

pilotsox
06-23-2009, 01:04 AM
Which 1919 White Sox put down bets against their team? With references, please.

I would think that taking money as a bribe so that bets can be successfully placed against your own team counts in that category. You know what I meant. Don't nitpick.

TDog
06-23-2009, 02:04 AM
I would think that taking money as a bribe so that bets can be successfully placed against your own team counts in that category. You know what I meant. Don't nitpick.

Buck Weaver never accepted a bribe so that bets could be successfully placed against his team. In any case Landis never alleged he did and said Weaver didn't need to have done so to be punished with a permanent suspension. And Weaver unsuccessfully appealed the suspension every year until his death in Chicago more than three decades after it was handed down.

Trying to rationalize that Pete Rose did nothing wrong is nitpicking.

The gambling issue goes to the core of the game's integrity. White Sox fans had questions about how Ozzie Guillen managed the White Sox on Thursday and Friday. How would you as a fan feel if you learned that he had bet on the White Sox to win Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday but not Thursday and Friday?

Of course, Guillen didn't bet on any games on the roadtrip. He doesn't gamble on baseball. Anyone entrusted with managing a major league baseball team would be an idiot to do so. And contrary to some of the things people post here, Ozzie Guillen is no idiot.

Pete Rose knew what he was doing. He knew it permanently disgrace him as well as severing his ties with the one profession in America he was suited for.

Pete Rose disgraced baseball. He doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. He isn't the victim here.

munchman33
06-23-2009, 03:42 AM
Did he ever bet directly against his team? If the Reds were playing, say, the Astros, did he ever put money on the Astros? Because unless he did, he's not being a detriment to his team or his managerial duties in any way. He might not have the added motivation of fighting for financial profit, but he still had all of his basic motivation. The only way he wouldn't have that is if he put money on the Reds' opponents, which would be the equivalent of throwing games.

Basically, the Rose haters here are saying that declining to bet on the Reds on a certain day is the same as betting against the Reds. And that's not true. Unlike the Black Sox, Rose never put down bets that would cause him to go out and intentionally lose a game. And as such, I refuse to hold it against him.

Ummm...I don't think you even read what I posted. Or perhaps didn't understand it. Let's try a different approach.

Pete betting for his team, on any given day, affects the way he manages that day, as he's all out for the win. Best relievers in, overworks the starters at the detriment of later starts, things like that.

Betting more on a particular game has the same effect.

Needing money is his personal life, for any reason, means even more so he's likely to push the starters and burn out his best relievers. (And you simply can't argue that a chronic gambler won't have that problem.)


It all boils down to Pete Rose letting allowing his personal financial situation control the play of his team on the field.

Oblong
06-23-2009, 08:34 AM
Throwing games is probably the very worst thing a player can do with regards to the integrity of the sport. The punishment for that has to be the most severe. But that doesn't mean that only throwing games warrants that punishment. You can do something almost as bad and get the same punishment.

Another point of clarification. Rose wasn't technically placed on the permanent ineligibility list for gambling on his own team. He was placed on the list because he agreed to be placed on the list in leiu of a trial with baseball over all of the allegations and after baseball's investigation. So speculation as to why isn't really relevant.

He plea bargained to the maximum punishment. What does that tell you about what baseball knew? He didn't want that info to get out.

A great book that sheds light on this is Fay Vincent's "The Last Commissioner". He tells about Lenny Dykstra and Don Zimmer and the right way this stuff can be handled.

Eddo144
06-23-2009, 11:56 AM
Did he ever bet directly against his team? If the Reds were playing, say, the Astros, did he ever put money on the Astros? Because unless he did, he's not being a detriment to his team or his managerial duties in any way. He might not have the added motivation of fighting for financial profit, but he still had all of his basic motivation. The only way he wouldn't have that is if he put money on the Reds' opponents, which would be the equivalent of throwing games.

Basically, the Rose haters here are saying that declining to bet on the Reds on a certain day is the same as betting against the Reds. And that's not true. Unlike the Black Sox, Rose never put down bets that would cause him to go out and intentionally lose a game. And as such, I refuse to hold it against him.
Pilot, betting on his own team is just the tip of the iceberg. Read what I posted above:

And I'm sure Pete had dozens of buddies scattered throughout baseball at the time he was betting on games. Him betting on any of those games could conceivably have had an impact, if one of his friends decided to go easy or something.
Betting on any MLB team while you're still involved with the league potentially compromises the outcome of games, that's why it's illegal.

Big D
06-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Ummm....You realize that argument is bull**** unless he bet on them everyday, and the same amount of money everyday, right? Because otherwise it affects who he's pitching in different situations.

It still would be wrong even if he bet on his team to win every game. Nobody goes undefeated in baseball; there are times when a manager has to rest his best players, even if it makes you more likely to lose any one game.

ChiSoxFan81
06-25-2009, 02:15 PM
The horse**** continues....http://www.nbcchicago.com/sports/baseball/Chicago-Baseball-Writers-To-Finally-Solve-Steroids-Issue.html