PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Hustle...reinstated?


Jjav829
12-10-2002, 01:08 AM
It could happen (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1209/1474384.html)

Kilroy
12-10-2002, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
It could happen (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1209/1474384.html)

It SHOULD happen.

kermittheefrog
12-10-2002, 01:18 AM
I sure do hope Bud Selig doesn't reinstate Rose and while he's at it he should kick Rose in the shins.

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 01:27 AM
If idiots like Jerry Reinsdorf, Bud Selig, David Glass and Jeff Loria can be a part of baseball despite the enormous damage they have caused it, then Pete Rose certainly should be allowed back in and given his rightful place in the Hall Of Fame.

With this news I'd say it's very probable it's going to happen. remember Comissioner Bud said at the press conference announcing the new CBA that he was going to start working towards restoring the PR image of baseball.

This would be a helluva way to start.

Lip

voodoochile
12-10-2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If idiots like Jerry Reinsdorf, Bud Selig, David Glass and Jeff Loria can be a part of baseball despite the enormous damage they have caused it, then Pete Rose certainly should be allowed back in and given his rightful place in the Hall Of Fame.

With this news I'd say it's very probable it's going to happen. remember Comissioner Bud said at the press conference announcing the new CBA that he was going to start working towards restoring the PR image of baseball.

This would be a helluva way to start.

Lip

I agree with Kermit. Don't reinstate anyone you think bet on the games he played in, ever...

pearso66
12-10-2002, 08:26 AM
ok wait, you have a problem reinstating Pete Rose? I think he deserves to be, he was one of the best. and about the betting on your own team, I believe Joe Jackson didn't only bet against his own team, but took money to throw the world series, yet he's in the hall. I think if he was allowed in the hall, Rose definitally should be. To me, I think the only way betting on your team hurts you is if you bet for your team to lose. If you bet on your team to win, you're not going to throw any games. But hey, thats my oppinion

Kilroy
12-10-2002, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by pearso66
ok wait, you have a problem reinstating Pete Rose? I think he deserves to be, he was one of the best. and about the betting on your own team, I believe Joe Jackson didn't only bet against his own team, but took money to throw the world series, yet he's in the hall.

Ummm, what color is the sky in your world??

Shoeless Joe is not in the hall.

However, Ty Cobb is. He was involved in throwing games also, yet he's in. He was also a dispicable racist puke that no one liked, so how he got voted in is a mystery as well.

I'm not saying let Rose work in baseball again, I'm just saying that he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame as a player. No one can deny that.

And where is it written that "fame" has to be all good?

jortafan
12-10-2002, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
However, Ty Cobb is. He was involved in throwing games also, yet he's in. He was also a dispicable racist puke that no one liked, so how he got voted in is a mystery as well.



What player from that era was NOT a despicable racist puke, as you so eloquently put it? I really doubt that Cobb's racial views were any different that anybody else from that era, particularly those of a southern, white male. The difference with Cobb was that he hated EVERYBODY, even white people. He was just a mean, bitter man. But he could hit, so he got the votes. After all, wasn't it Jim Bouton in Ball Four who said that players "were only as smart as their batting averages."

duke of dorwood
12-10-2002, 08:58 AM
In a society where an OJ Simpson is free, Rose should be reinstated.

Kilroy
12-10-2002, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
What player from that era was NOT a despicable racist puke, as you so eloquently put it? I really doubt that Cobb's racial views were any different that anybody else from that era, particularly those of a southern, white male. The difference with Cobb was that he hated EVERYBODY, even white people. He was just a mean, bitter man. But he could hit, so he got the votes. After all, wasn't it Jim Bouton in Ball Four who said that players "were only as smart as their batting averages."

That whole thought was just commentary. The point wasn't that Cobb was racist, but that no one liked him. So how the hell did he get voted in?

That point was not relevant to the fact that Cobb was involved in gambling and game-fixing and still managed to get into the hall.

kermittheefrog
12-10-2002, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy

That point was not relevant to the fact that Cobb was involved in gambling and game-fixing and still managed to get into the hall.

Cobb was not invovled in game fixing. If anyone proved him to be he would not be in the hall. Where are you getting your facts?

And Duke, what the hell does OJ Simpson have to do with Pete Rose being reinstated?

Cheryl
12-10-2002, 11:43 AM
Oh good. The Pete Rose conversation again.

You know who should get his eligibility back? Buck Weaver. I'm not saying he should be in The Hall, just that he should be eligible.

Kilroy
12-10-2002, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Cobb was not invovled in game fixing. If anyone proved him to be he would not be in the hall. Where are you getting your facts?

And Duke, what the hell does OJ Simpson have to do with Pete Rose being reinstated?

This (http://www.thebaseballpage.com/past/pp/cobbty/default.htm) is one place that talks a little bit about it. Try hunting around, you'll find more.

Here's another (http://1919blacksox.com/history.htm) ...

Lip Man 1
12-10-2002, 12:02 PM
Question for Kermit:

You say anybody who bet shouldn't be allowed in baseball. OK, I can't really argue that point.

Can you explain this one to me.

Rose and the Black Sox may have caused the outcome of some games to have been changed because of financial gain. (and stat freak Bill James also accuses Cobb, Speaker and Ruth of the same thing in his work, which I think was entitled "28 men out?")

The courts ruled that in a three year period the owners of MLB violated contracts, and acted in collusion by not allowing free agent players to go to other teams. In other words, they fixed the outcome of three seasons by preventing teams from improving themselves.

Should folks like Selig and Reinsdorf (whom Fay Vincent says in his new book "The Last Comissioner" came up with the collusion idea) be banned as well?

Just wondering...

Lip

RichH55
12-10-2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Ummm, what color is the sky in your world??

Shoeless Joe is not in the hall.

However, Ty Cobb is. He was involved in throwing games also, yet he's in. He was also a dispicable racist puke that no one liked, so how he got voted in is a mystery as well.

I'm not saying let Rose work in baseball again, I'm just saying that he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame as a player. No one can deny that.

And where is it written that "fame" has to be all good?

Ty Cobb isnt just in the Hall of Fame...he was the first guy in...the standard bearer

RichH55
12-10-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Question for Kermit:

You say anybody who bet shouldn't be allowed in baseball. OK, I can't really argue that point.

Can you explain this one to me.

Rose and the Black Sox may have caused the outcome of some games to have been changed because of financial gain. (and stat freak Bill James also accuses Cobb, Speaker and Ruth of the same thing in his work, which I think was entitled "28 men out?")

The courts ruled that in a three year period the owners of MLB violated contracts, and acted in collusion by not allowing free agent players to go to other teams. In other words, they fixed the outcome of three seasons by preventing teams from improving themselves.

Should folks like Selig and Reinsdorf (whom Fay Vincent says in his new book "The Last Comissioner" came up with the collusion idea) be banned as well?

Just wondering...

Lip


All very good points Lip...I think we are on the same side of an issue for once

Nellie_Fox
12-10-2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rose and the Black Sox may have caused the outcome of some games to have been changed because of financial gain. (and stat freak Bill James also accuses Cobb, Speaker and Ruth of the same thing in his work, which I think was entitled "28 men out?")

The courts ruled that in a three year period the owners of MLB violated contracts, and acted in collusion by not allowing free agent players to go to other teams. In other words, they fixed the outcome of three seasons by preventing teams from improving themselves.

Should folks like Selig and Reinsdorf (whom Fay Vincent says in his new book "The Last Comissioner" came up with the collusion idea) be banned as well?
Ahh, the old "moral equivalency" argument. Since someone else did something bad and didn't get the same punishment I did, then I should not be punished. Weak argument at best. Just like pointing at Ty Cobb. Just because they apparently didn't consider "character" with Cobb doesn't mean it can never be considered from then on.

Rose has not even expressed any remorse for his actions. He has been defiant. He doesn't have my support.

vegyrex
12-10-2002, 02:35 PM
No way Rose gets in without Shoeless Joe.

RichH55
12-10-2002, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by vegyrex
No way Rose gets in without Shoeless Joe.

Well regardless on what you argue on Shoeless Joe and his role in the Series....it was a lifetime ban...he's dead..end of ban

Daver
12-10-2002, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Well regardless on what you argue on Shoeless Joe and his role in the Series....it was a lifetime ban...he's dead..end of ban

Yep I just checked,Joe Jackson is still dead.


Rose should not be reinstated,he should not be allowed to have any position in MLB,but he should be allowed to be inducted into the HOF,the all time MLB hits leader should be in Cooperstown.

Tragg
12-10-2002, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
It could happen (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1209/1474384.html)

Let's hope not. He sullied the game like no one ever has.

TornLabrum
12-10-2002, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Well regardless on what you argue on Shoeless Joe and his role in the Series....it was a lifetime ban...he's dead..end of ban

That's where most people get it wrong. Jackson wasn't banned for life. His status is "permanently ineligible." That means forever.

kermittheefrog
12-11-2002, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Should folks like Selig and Reinsdorf (whom Fay Vincent says in his new book "The Last Comissioner" came up with the collusion idea) be banned as well?

Just wondering...



Why the hell would I be opposed to banning jerks like that from baseball?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-11-2002, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Why the hell would I be opposed to banning jerks like that from baseball?

Umm... because their "jerkiness" has absolutely nothing to do with the actual feats of excellence they achieved playing baseball and makes them obvious hall-of-famers?

See Cobb, Ty.

Cheryl
12-11-2002, 09:49 AM
George, they're discussing banning Selig and Reinsdorf. Did you forget the teal?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-11-2002, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl
George, they're discussing banning Selig and Reinsdorf. Did you forget the teal?

I agree anyone who hurts the game should be banned or made "permanently ineligible." This should include quite a few HOFers already inducted, including the racist Judge Landis.

If some people here want a Hall of Fame pure as the driven snow, they should at least attempt not to be hypocrites about it.

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2002, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If some people here want a Hall of Fame pure as the driven snow, they should at least attempt not to be hypocrites about it. The qualifications for the Hall include "character." The voters judge character based on societal standards at the time of voting. It would be just as wrong to go back and kick out elected members based on today's standards as it would be to use the standards of fifty or seventy five years ago to decide today's inductees. Pure as the driven snow? Hardly. But being for maintaining standards today is not hypocritical.

Kilroy
12-11-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
The qualifications for the Hall include "character." The voters judge character based on societal standards at the time of voting.

Personally, I find that to be a load of crap. First of all, "character" covers a whole range of things ranging from "arch criminal" to whether a guy's a good father or not. Second, character means **** when it comes to playing the game. When you go to the HOF, you don't see things about what a family man a guy was or how he was a guy who helped w/ charities. You read about his accomplishments in the game.

RichH55
12-11-2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Personally, I find that to be a load of crap. First of all, "character" covers a whole range of things ranging from "arch criminal" to whether a guy's a good father or not. Second, character means **** when it comes to playing the game. When you go to the HOF, you don't see things about what a family man a guy was or how he was a guy who helped w/ charities. You read about his accomplishments in the game.

Agreed....but it can be used as a crutch to let a guy like Puckett(prior to his criminal problems) in first ballot, and hold out "bad guys" ......nothing like arbitrary ethics

Paulwny
12-11-2002, 08:22 PM
What would have happened if Rose was in the HOF and they later found out about his gambling ? NOTHING !

RichH55
12-11-2002, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
What would have happened if Rose was in the HOF and they later found out about his gambling ? NOTHING !

The only guy I ever heard being booted from a HOF was Alan Eagleson in the NHL....and his transgressions were far worse than Petes and others in the Hall were willing to leave if he didnt....I dont think Petes situation would have been the same at all

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Personally, I find that to be a load of crap. First of all, "character" covers a whole range of things ranging from "arch criminal" to whether a guy's a good father or not. Second, character means **** when it comes to playing the game. When you go to the HOF, you don't see things about what a family man a guy was or how he was a guy who helped w/ charities. You read about his accomplishments in the game.

I couldn't agree more. So if we're using character, does that mean that if Barry Bonds beats his wife and it becomes public knowledge, that means he shouldn't be allowed in, or held back? I mean beating your wife is horrible character, worse than gambling.

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Personally, I find that to be a load of crap. First of all, "character" covers a whole range of things ranging from "arch criminal" to whether a guy's a good father or not. Second, character means **** when it comes to playing the game. When you go to the HOF, you don't see things about what a family man a guy was or how he was a guy who helped w/ charities. You read about his accomplishments in the game.

Pete's accomplishments in the game include gambling on the games he played and managed in. That directly effects the integrity of the sport and is a much different issue from whether he was a good father or was a racist (for example). That accomplishment involves the integrity of his play and the decisions he made while managing (at least in theory). It cannot be excused and must be punished in the worst way the sport is capable of doing, IMO. To do less undermines the trust the public places in MLB and the other professional leagues that the games are not rigged - otherwise they might as well call it an exhibition and start having the catcher do a "piledriver" on anyone who tries to run him over...

Paulwny
12-11-2002, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Pete's accomplishments in the game include gambling on the games he played and managed in. That directly effects the integrity of the sport and is a much different issue from whether he was a good father or was a racist (for example). That accomplishment involves the integrity of his play and the decisions he made while managing (at least in theory). It cannot be excused and must be punished in the worst way the sport is capable of doing, IMO. To do less undermines the trust the public places in MLB and the other professional leagues that the games are not rigged - otherwise they might as well call it an exhibition and start having the catcher do a "piledriver" on anyone who tries to run him over...

I agrre with your post however, we are in the minority.
The few polls I have seen, ~ 60% of the fans want him in the hof, ~30% want his banned lifted if he admits to gambling and only ~ 10% want a life time ban.
The vast majority of fans don't believe that Rose affected the integrity of the game.

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Pete's accomplishments in the game include gambling on the games he played and managed in. That directly effects the integrity of the sport and is a much different issue from whether he was a good father or was a racist (for example). That accomplishment involves the integrity of his play and the decisions he made while managing (at least in theory). It cannot be excused and must be punished in the worst way the sport is capable of doing, IMO. To do less undermines the trust the public places in MLB and the other professional leagues that the games are not rigged - otherwise they might as well call it an exhibition and start having the catcher do a "piledriver" on anyone who tries to run him over...

He never gambled in games he played in. His gambling occured while he was managing. Plus, he gambled on his team. The question is, does that deserve a lifetime ban(essentially the equivalency of the death penalty)? I think he should apologize for it, but I do not think he should be banned from baseball for life. Murders get out of jail in less time than Rose has served his ban.

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
He never gambled in games he played in. His gambling occured while he was managing. Plus, he gambled on his team. The question is, does that deserve a lifetime ban(essentially the equivalency of the death penalty)? I think he should apologize for it, but I do not think he should be banned from baseball for life. Murders get out of jail in less time than Rose has served his ban.

Okay, let's take the best possible situation:

He only bet on his team to win.

Do we know for a fact that he didn't change his management decisions on those days? Did he allow players to risk injury because he had money riding on it? Did he abuse the bullpen in a desperate attempt to win? Did he not rest guys who had a day off coming?

What about the other days when he didn't bet? Did he use the bullpen differently? Did he rest a bunch of players? Did he not care as much if they won or lost?

This isn't some easy answer, "Well he only bet on his team to win and then only when he was managing." There are big issues to be considered here. This is directly attached to the very integrity of the game and the belief that the game is honest and above reproach. Murder is a slimey, messy, dirty business, but if it doesn't involve a player on another team in a direct attempt to influence outcomes it doesn't have any bearing on the game itself. This does, or at least had the potential to. That has to be punished. The other stuff should be punished by the government, that is what it is there for...

If it's okay for Pete then it is okay for everyone, right? You really want to open that can of worms?

...and only ~ 10% want a life time ban.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Americans have no long term memory anymore. Pete hasn't damaged the sport in at least 10 years, so he must be all better now. Sigh...

Paulwny
12-11-2002, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
He never gambled in games he played in. His gambling occured while he was managing. Plus, he gambled on his team. .

Even betting on your team to win raise questions:
1) was a key starter given an extra day off so he could pitch in the "bet" game
2) were key relievers used the day before in a close game or were they given the day off so they'd be ready for the "bet" game
3)were any position players given the day off prior to the "bet" game
Rose may not have given his team the best chance to win the games that were played the day before the "bet " games.

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
He never gambled in games he played in. Do you know that for a fact? Actually, that seems like an illogical conclusion to come to without evidence. Why would he gamble only as a manager, but not as a player?
His gambling occured while he was managing. Plus, he gambled on his team. The question is, does that deserve a lifetime ban(essentially the equivalency of the death penalty)? I think he should apologize for it, but I do not think he should be banned from baseball for life. Murders get out of jail in less time than Rose has served his ban. Again, you don't know that he never bet against his team. I'm not saying that I think he'd throw games to win a bet; that goes against his competitive nature. But, with the inside information he has on injuries to his players, might he not conclude he had no chance on a given date and decide to bet against them?

Does that deserve a lifetime ban? Yes! You know why? Because they are all told, every year, over and over again, that it will result in a lifetime ban. So now the message should be sent "but we don't really mean it. If you're a HOF caliber player, and you say you're sorry, we'll just forget about it." That makes the warning that they give every year a hollow threat, doesn't it?

I'm sick to death of a society where "no" doesn't really mean "no," where there is always a second chance for everthing, no matter how well you understood the potential consequences for what you did. Rose knew damn well that if he got caught gambling on baseball that he was gone. That's why he stonewalled.

Paulwny
12-11-2002, 09:27 PM
Sorry VC didn't see your reply when I was typing mine. Just about the same thing.

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Sorry VC didn't see your reply when I was typing mine. Just about the same thing.

No apology necessary. I think they came up at the same time. Great minds and all that...

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Do you know that for a fact? Actually, that seems like an illogical conclusion to come to without evidence. Why would he gamble only as a manager, but not as a player?
Again, you don't know that he never bet against his team. I'm not saying that I think he'd throw games to win a bet; that goes against his competitive nature. But, with the inside information he has on injuries to his players, might he not conclude he had no chance on a given date and decide to bet against them?

Does that deserve a lifetime ban? Yes! You know why? Because they are all told, every year, over and over again, that it will result in a lifetime ban. So now the message should be sent "but we don't really mean it. If you're a HOF caliber player, and you say you're sorry, we'll just forget about it." That makes the warning that they give every year a hollow threat, doesn't it?

I'm sick to death of a society where "no" doesn't really mean "no," where there is always a second chance for everthing, no matter how well you understood the potential consequences for what you did. Rose knew damn well that if he got caught gambling on baseball that he was gone. That's why he stonewalled.

There has never been any evidence found that Rose bet on the Reds while he was playing, nor has there ever been any evidence found that he bet against his team. John Dowd has admitted this. Do I know for a fact that he never did? No. The only person who knows for a fact whether he ever bet while playing or bet against his team is Pete Rose, because the evidence has never proved either.

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
There has never been any evidence found that Rose bet on the Reds while he was playing, nor has there ever been any evidence found that he bet against his team. That's not at all the same thing as making the declaration that he didn't. In any case, as Paulwny, Voodoo and I have pointed out, even betting as a manager, even betting to win, has all kinds of pitfalls.

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Okay, let's take the best possible situation:

He only bet on his team to win.

Do we know for a fact that he didn't change his management decisions on those days? Did he allow players to risk injury because he had money riding on it? Did he abuse the bullpen in a desperate attempt to win? Did he not rest guys who had a day off coming?

What about the other days when he didn't bet? Did he use the bullpen differently? Did he rest a bunch of players? Did he not care as much if they won or lost?

This isn't some easy answer, "Well he only bet on his team to win and then only when he was managing." There are big issues to be considered here. This is directly attached to the very integrity of the game and the belief that the game is honest and above reproach. Murder is a slimey, messy, dirty business, but if it doesn't involve a player on another team in a direct attempt to influence outcomes it doesn't have any bearing on the game itself. This does, or at least had the potential to. That has to be punished. The other stuff should be punished by the government, that is what it is there for...

If it's okay for Pete then it is okay for everyone, right? You really want to open that can of worms?

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Americans have no long term memory anymore. Pete hasn't damaged the sport in at least 10 years, so he must be all better now. Sigh...


Originally posted by Paulwny


Even betting on your team to win raise questions:
1) was a key starter given an extra day off so he could pitch in the "bet" game
2) were key relievers used the day before in a close game or were they given the day off so they'd be ready for the "bet" game
3)were any position players given the day off prior to the "bet" game
Rose may not have given his team the best chance to win the games that were played the day before the "bet " games.

I knew this would come up and Im not arguing that he never did mess with the rotation or bullpen in order to win a bet. Im not even going to argue that he didn't hurt the integrity of the game. What I am saying is that do you really believe that what he did is worthy of a lifetime banishment from the game? I don't even think theres much of an argument here. You either think it is or isn't and I doubt any fact or statement thrown out is going to change anyones opinion either way. It's apparent that both of you feel he deserves what he got. I think he should be allowed back in. Like I said, everyone has their opinion and I don't think there are many people who will argue that he didn't bet on games. It's just a matter of whether his punishment was too harsh, or just right.

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
That's not at all the same thing as making the declaration that he didn't. In any case, as Paulwny, Voodoo and I have pointed out, even betting as a manager, even betting to win, has all kinds of pitfalls.

No it's not. But the evidence is all you can go on, unless you somehow have a way of getting into Pete Rose's mind to find out what he knows. Otherwise your gonna have to go on the evidence presented. The same evidence that was used to show that he did bet on baseball games, which would also prove that he didn't bet on the Reds nor during his playing career. Maybe if you read the Dowd Report it says more, but I don't have the time to read it.

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
I knew this would come up and Im not arguing that he never did mess with the rotation or bullpen in order to win a bet. Im not even going to argue that he didn't hurt the integrity of the game. What I am saying is that do you really believe that what he did is worthy of a lifetime banishment from the game? I don't even think theres much of an argument here. You either think it is or isn't and I doubt any fact or statement thrown out is going to change anyones opinion either way. It's apparent that both of you feel he deserves what he got. I think he should be allowed back in. Like I said, everyone has their opinion and I don't think there are many people who will argue that he didn't bet on games. It's just a matter of whether his punishment was too harsh, or just right.

Yes, I do. I think this problem needs a very simple rule:

Bet on the game and you are done forever, period.

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, I do. I think this problem needs a very simple rule:

Bet on the game and you are done forever, period.

Well, as you know, it's never that easy. Just about everyone gets another chance nowadays. Kill someone, you get a few years and a warning that we'll be watching you so don't do it again. We could even go on with the whole priest story and everything else, but I doubt you really want to go through all things that you can do and still get a second chance, and I know I don't want to.

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
What I am saying is that do you really believe that what he did is worthy of a lifetime banishment from the game? You skipped right over the part of my post that says that every player is reminded, in no uncertain terms, every year, that if they bet on baseball they're gone.

Knowing that, and knowing that Rose knew that, you really think it should be "we didn't really mean it?" Then what about the next guy caught gambling on baseball? Or is this only for HOF-type players? He knew what risk he was taking. He lost the biggest bet he ever made; the one where he bet his career that he wouldn't get caught.

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2002, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Just about everyone gets another chance nowadays. And is that the way you want it to be? And don't start the whole "but Bobby does it" argument. They stop buying that after about third grade.

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
You skipped right over the part of my post that says that every player is reminded, in no uncertain terms, every year, that if they bet on baseball they're gone.

Knowing that, and knowing that Rose knew that, you really think it should be "we didn't really mean it?" Then what about the next guy caught gambling on baseball? Or is this only for HOF-type players? He knew what risk he was taking. He lost the biggest bet he ever made; the one where he bet his career that he wouldn't get caught.

I think the point has been made clearly that everyone gets a second chance whether you like it or not.

I was responding to the fact that you said how do I know what he bet on, and I said I don't for a fact, I am just going on what the evidence shows.

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Well, as you know, it's never that easy. Just about everyone gets another chance nowadays. Kill someone, you get a few years and a warning that we'll be watching you so don't do it again. We could even go on with the whole priest story and everything else, but I doubt you really want to go through all things that you can do and still get a second chance, and I know I don't want to.

Yeah, but this is sports. Sports are supposed to be about pure competition between superior athletes. There whole existence is based on integrity of the game. Once that goes, it's a short ride to the XFL and beyond.

Question for you: You want Pete reinstated. What if ARod admitted to betting on the Rangers to win half the games they played? Should he be banned? If so, for how long? Does he ever get to play again? 10 year ban? 5? Less?

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2002, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
I think the point has been made clearly that everyone gets a second chance whether you like it or not. Actually, not everyone gets a second chance at all. People all over the world lose jobs, get thrown out of colleges, etc. and don't get taken back. Ever.

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yeah, but this is sports. Sports are supposed to be about pure competition between superior athletes. There whole existence is based on integrity of the game. Once that goes, it's a short ride to the XFL and beyond.

Question for you: You want Pete reinstated. What if ARod admitted to betting on the Rangers to win half the games they played? Should he be banned? If so, for how long? Does he ever get to play again? 10 year ban? 5? Less?

I believe that he should be banned from playing baseball, if you want my real opinion. I don't think that he should be banned from ever participating in any MLB event again without the consent of the commissioner. If Selig wants to keep him from ever managing or ever being involved directly with a MLB team, fine. I am saying that I think he should be allowed in the HOF. If Arod was betting on games I would say go ahead and ban him from ever playing again, but allow him to be put on the HOF ballot with his current career numbers, which would not be enough to get him in the HOF.

Jjav829
12-11-2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Actually, not everyone gets a second chance at all. People all over the world lose jobs, get thrown out of colleges, etc. and don't get taken back. Ever.

Read my previous post. I said just about everyone. When I repeat myself I tend not to say the exact same thing.

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2002, 10:05 PM
He knew what the consequences were.

Daver
12-11-2002, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Actually, not everyone gets a second chance at all.

Your right Nellie,the moose never got a second chance,he made good eating though.

:redneck

PaleHoseGeorge
12-11-2002, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
He knew what the consequences were.

Rules are meant to be broken, especially ones as specious and arbitrarily enforced as Judge Landis's gambling ban.

Izzie Newton laid down the law for practically everything. Then along comes Al Einstein and breaks practically every one of Izzie's rules. Should we keep him out of the Physics Hall of Fame? :smile:

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Rules are meant to be broken, especially ones as specious and arbitrarily enforced as Judge Landis's gambling ban.

Izzie Newton laid down the law for practically everything. Then along comes Al Einstein and breaks practically every one of Izzie's rules. Should we keep him out of the Physics Hall of Fame? :smile:

Well, relatively speaking, the two aren't comparable...

TornLabrum
12-11-2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Rules are meant to be broken, especially ones as specious and arbitrarily enforced as Judge Landis's gambling ban.

Izzie Newton laid down the law for practically everything. Then along comes Al Einstein and breaks practically every one of Izzie's rules. Should we keep him out of the Physics Hall of Fame? :smile:

George, you know better than that. Al didn't break any of Izzie's rules. He showed that Izzie's rules were just a special case of his.

As far as Landis is concerned, guys were tossed out of the NL by Bill Hulbert in 1877 for gambling and throwing games. Landis had nothing to do with it. This predated Landis by over 40 years.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-11-2002, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
George, you know better than that. Al didn't break any of Izzie's rules. He showed that Izzie's rules were just a special case of his.

As far as Landis is concerned, guys were tossed out of the NL by Bill Hulbert in 1877 for gambling and throwing games. Landis had nothing to do with it. This predated Landis by over 40 years.

There you go tryin' to rewrite history. Izzie couldn't even fathom time bending at the speed of light. The guy was getting hit in the head by apples, for crying out loud!

Oh sure, I suppose Izzie meant for their to be exceptions for spaceships entering blackholes and such. The point is, he didn't.

Nah nah nah nah nah!

:)

Paulwny
12-12-2002, 07:30 AM
I heard part of this interview yesterday but waited till I could find an article and then post.

December 12, 2002 -- John Dowd, who wrote the damning report that led to Pete Rose's expulsion from baseball 13 years ago, said the report was not as damning as it could have been.
The Washington D.C.-based lawyer revealed yesterday that if the investigation would have continued a little longer it would have shown the all-time hit leader not only bet on Reds' games, but actually bet against the team he was managing.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/26938.htm

PaleHoseGeorge
12-12-2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I heard part of this interview yesterday but waited till I could find an article and then post.

December 12, 2002 -- John Dowd, who wrote the damning report that led to Pete Rose's expulsion from baseball 13 years ago, said the report was not as damning as it could have been.
The Washington D.C.-based lawyer revealed yesterday that if the investigation would have continued a little longer it would have shown the all-time hit leader not only bet on Reds' games, but actually bet against the team he was managing.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/26938.htm

I must say, this guy is slime-and-a-half. Twelve years (!) after MLB and Rose reached their perverted plea bargain agreement, this guy is STILL trying to tar Rose.

Dowd's public statements are Exhibit A in how baseball is at least as dirty as Rose for any controversy stemming from the plea bargain.

I'm mean, really! Why on earth would Rose admit to anything given what Giamatti and Dowd have done since they voluntarily entered this agreement? Giamatti told the press Rose bet on ballgames at the very press conference announcing the agreement. It was expressly agreed that no such finding was made by baseball! Furthermore, no court has seen fit to convict Rose of gambling crimes, either. What kind of justice is this?

Hell, given MLB's (and Dowd's) behavior, Rose is damned if he ever admitted to anything. To do so would simply invite his detractors, starting with that slimeball Dowd, to crow they were right all along. He'll never get into the Hall following that path; they've already lied to him repeatedly! So Rose does what any rational human being would do in a similar circumstance; he denies the charge.

Why this is such a mystery to so many of you is beyond explanation.

Dadawg_77
12-12-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, relatively speaking, the two aren't comparable...

LOL :)



But I am not sure what happen if Pete bet on the Reds or not. Its one thing to put your money where your mouth is, but it is a completly different thing if Rose bet on the Reds losing. But then if Rose is allowed does that allow the 1919 Sox back in?

Zednem700
12-12-2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I must say, this guy is slime-and-a-half. Twelve years (!) after MLB and Rose reached their perverted plea bargain agreement, this guy is STILL trying to tar Rose.

Dowd's public statements are Exhibit A in how baseball is at least as dirty as Rose for any controversy stemming from the plea bargain.

I'm mean, really! Why on earth would Rose admit to anything given what Giamatti and Dowd have done since they voluntarily entered this agreement? Giamatti told the press Rose bet on ballgames at the very press conference announcing the agreement. It was expressly agreed that no such finding was made by baseball! Furthermore, no court has seen fit to convict Rose of gambling crimes, either. What kind of justice is this?

Hell, given MLB's (and Dowd's) behavior, Rose is damned if he ever admitted to anything. To do so would simply invite his detractors, starting with that slimeball Dowd, to crow they were right all along. He'll never get into the Hall following that path; they've already lied to him repeatedly! So Rose does what any rational human being would do in a similar circumstance; he denies the charge.

Why this is such a mystery to so many of you is beyond explanation.


I never understood the whole Dowd wanted to get Rose angle. His job was to investigate whether Rose bet on baseball. His investigation led him to believe that Rose did. He reported this to the commissioner. Why would Dowd, who had no reason to risk his reputation, by engage in a witch hunt. This is a man who has been asked, by the attorney general of the United States to lead an internal investigation of the FBI. He isn't just an investigator however, as he has defended people who were the subject of investigation as well. I really have a problem with people attacking the integrity of a man just because they don't like what he found. Here's a little bio to show that Dowd is no shill, but a very respected member of the bar. http://www.dowdreport.com/johndowd.html

Rose agreed to what amounted to a plea bargain that STOPPED ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION into his wrong doings, and stated that the commish had cause to institute the lifetime ban. He didn't admit that he bet on games, but he did admit that there was cause to BAN HIM FOR LIFE. Why do people fight so much for this guy, because he was a hustling white guy? He broke the cardinal rule, the rule that if it isn't followed leads to the game having as much integrity as the WWE. Why do people ignore that.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-12-2002, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
I never understood the whole Dowd wanted to get Rose angle. His job was to investigate whether Rose bet on baseball. His investigation led him to believe that Rose did. He reported this to the commissioner. Why would Dowd, who had no reason to risk his reputation, by engage in a witch hunt. This is a man who has been asked, by the attorney general of the United States to lead an internal investigation of the FBI. He isn't just an investigator however, as he has defended people who were the subject of investigation as well. I really have a problem with people attacking the integrity of a man just because they don't like what he found. Here's a little bio to show that Dowd is no shill, but a very respected member of the bar. http://www.dowdreport.com/johndowd.html

Rose agreed to what amounted to a plea bargain that STOPPED ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION into his wrong doings, and stated that the commish had cause to institute the lifetime ban. He didn't admit that he bet on games, but he did admit that there was cause to BAN HIM FOR LIFE. Why do people fight so much for this guy, because he was a hustling white guy? He broke the cardinal rule, the rule that if it isn't followed leads to the game having as much integrity as the WWE. Why do people ignore that.

What does "hustling white guy" have to do with it? Why would you think his race is important?

I have issues with the rest of what you wrote, too, but let's start with the big ticket items first.

Your turn.

voodoochile
12-12-2002, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What does "hustling white guy" have to do with it? Why would you think his race is important?

I have issues with the rest of what you wrote, too, but let's start with the big ticket items first.

Your turn.

I don't like the idea that race is ever brought up, but I think it is fairly obvious that America as a whole responds better to white superstars than black superstars and tends to give them more slack. From that perspective, I understand why Zednem wrote what he wrote...

PaleHoseGeorge
12-12-2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't like the idea that race is ever brought up, but I think it is fairly obvious that America as a whole responds better to white superstars than black superstars and tends to give them more slack. From that perspective, I understand why Zednem wrote what he wrote...

With all due respect, this debate has had nothing to do with race. It ought to be manifest (to even you and Zed) that a ballplayer with 4,256 hits will have his HOF supporters. That's why NOBODY has raised race in this debate--until now.

I find Zed raising raise race (and your supporting the same) as nothing short of reprehensibile. Have your opinions of others been so debased, this is the best excuse you can make for why they disagree with you? Man, that is sick. Both of you ought to be flat-out ashamed yourselves.

No smilie face on this one.

voodoochile
12-12-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
With all due respect, this debate has had nothing to do with race. It ought to be manifest (to even you and Zed) that a ballplayer with 4,256 hits will have his HOF supporters. That's why NOBODY has raised race in this debate--until now.

I find Zed raising raise race (and your supporting the same) as nothing short of reprehensibile. Have your opinions of others been so debased, this is the best excuse you can make for why they disagree with you? Man, that is sick. Both of you ought to be flat-out ashamed yourselves.

No smilie face on this one.

For the record, I am NOT supporting Zed's statement, merely stating that I can understand why some people think it matters. I haven't considered Rose's race as a factor, but I can understand why someone would and can honestly accept that it plays a role in the populace at large, though I don't think it plays a role for you or for anyone else here at WSI that I can think of...

Hope that clarifys my position...

PaleHoseGeorge
12-12-2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
For the record, I am NOT supporting Zed's statement, merely stating that I can understand why some people think it matters. I haven't considered Rose's race as a factor, but I can understand why someone would and can honestly accept that it plays a role in the populace at large, though I don't think it plays a role for you or for anyone else here at WSI that I can think of...

Hope that clarifys my position...

Actually, it does. Thank you.

TornLabrum
12-12-2002, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
There you go tryin' to rewrite history. Izzie couldn't even fathom time bending at the speed of light. The guy was getting hit in the head by apples, for crying out loud!

Oh sure, I suppose Izzie meant for their to be exceptions for spaceships entering blackholes and such. The point is, he didn't.

Nah nah nah nah nah!

:)

Try re-reading what I said. Al showed that all of Izzie's stuff works until you get up to a significant fraction of the speed of light. Al showed that Izzie's work was a special case of what he was working on, when the velocity numbers got so low as to have minimal effect on things like time.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-12-2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Try re-reading what I said. Al showed that all of Izzie's stuff works until you get up to a significant fraction of the speed of light. Al showed that Izzie's work was a special case of what he was working on, when the velocity numbers got so low as to have minimal effect on things like time.

Travel back in time with me, Torn. The year is 1802. You've invented the most amazing machine. It takes you high into the air, and allows you to travel at ever faster speeds, until you are going 670 million miles per hour.

Just one problem for you, our erstwhile star traveler. You begin to age less quickly than everyone else. You come back to Earth a younger man than you left.

Now, why don't you tell me about all the exceptions Izzie Newton wrote about physics for the world of 1802 star travelers like yourself. (Hint: he didn't). It would be another 100 years before anyone could explain what happened to you--'cause Newton's rules left everyone stumped for an answer. His rulebook was only good for when you're deerhunting and run out of toilet paper.

Al Einstein is the true HOFer. Why, oh why do you debate me on this? :smile:

RedPinStripes
12-12-2002, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy

I'm not saying let Rose work in baseball again, I'm just saying that he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame as a player. No one can deny that.

And where is it written that "fame" has to be all good?

Exactly.

TornLabrum
12-12-2002, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Travel back in time with me, Torn. The year is 1802. You've invented the most amazing machine. It takes you high into the air, and allows you to travel at ever faster speeds, until you are going 670 million miles per hour.

Just one problem for you, our erstwhile star traveler. You begin to age less quickly than everyone else. You come back to Earth a younger man than you left.

Now, why don't you tell me about all the exceptions Izzie Newton wrote about physics for the world of 1802 star travelers like yourself. (Hint: he didn't). It would be another 100 years before anyone could explain what happened to you--'cause Newton's rules left everyone stumped for an answer. His rulebook was only good for when you're deerhunting and run out of toilet paper.

Al Einstein is the true HOFer. Why, oh why do you debate me on this? :smile:

Because I teach physics and know what the hell I'm talking about. Of course Izzie didn't know about travel at anywhere near a fraction of the speed of light. Hell, he didn't even know what light's nature was (of course nobody got that right until Al did and won himself one of thse prizes that Alfie started giving out around the turn of the 20th Century.

Let me repeat what I just said twice: Al showed that what Izzie figured out was a special case of the much grander scheme. Don't knock what Izzie did, Hose. It got us to the moon and several of the planets over the past 40-some years. And Al didn't have to be invoked for any of it. So Izzie's special case works out pretty well, even when you're moving along at a snail's pace of around 20,000 mph.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-12-2002, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Because I teach physics and know what the hell I'm talking about. Of course Izzie didn't know about travel at anywhere near a fraction of the speed of light. Hell, he didn't even know what light's nature was (of course nobody got that right until Al did and won himself one of thse prizes that Alfie started giving out around the turn of the 20th Century.

Let me repeat what I just said twice: Al showed that what Izzie figured out was a special case of the much grander scheme. Don't knock what Izzie did, Hose. It got us to the moon and several of the planets over the past 40-some years. And Al didn't have to be invoked for any of it. So Izzie's special case works out pretty well, even when you're moving along at a snail's pace of around 20,000 mph.

Okay Torn, point taken but grant me this much. Izzie's rulebook wasn't good for much more than a deerhunter's emergency supply of toilet paper when talking about the speed of light.

Will you use this thread in teaching your students any lessons? Gee, I hope so!
:gulp:

Daver
12-12-2002, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay Torn, point taken but grant me this much. Izzie's rulebook wasn't good for much more than a deerhunter's emergency supply of toilet paper when talking about the speed of light.

Will you use this thread in teaching your students any lessons? Gee, I hope so!
:gulp:

I'm getting a little tired of the sarcastic deerhunter references.......



:)

TornLabrum
12-12-2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay Torn, point taken but grant me this much. Izzie's rulebook wasn't good for much more than a deerhunter's emergency supply of toilet paper when talking about the speed of light.

Will you use this thread in teaching your students any lessons? Gee, I hope so!
:gulp:

Al's rulebook takes over to the point where time dilation is pretty significant even at about 40% of the speed of light (time is something like 25% slower if you're moving at that speed, iirc. A couple of decades ago, I remember reading where the astronauts at that time who had been traveling the longest time in space (and this was before Mir) had aged on the order of 10^-12 s or something. That's moving around 18,000 mph or so for weeks. Izzie didn't need to worry about time dilation, and we don't yet either.

Now when Zefram Cochrane invents warp drive...that's another story.

Ol Aches & Pains
12-12-2002, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Cobb was not invovled in game fixing. If anyone proved him to be he would not be in the hall. Where are you getting your facts?

And Duke, what the hell does OJ Simpson have to do with Pete Rose being reinstated?

In 1928, when Cobb and Tris Speaker were finishing their careers as teammates on the Philadelphia A's, they were accused of, and investigated for fixing games. It never came to anything, due to lack of evidence I guess, but it was widely believed at the time that they were guilty. I know gambling in the game can't be condoned, or even tolerated, but the point is there are a lot worse people than Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. And hell, in a world where Yasser Arafat can win a Nobel Peace Prize...

TornLabrum
12-12-2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains
In 1928, when Cobb and Tris Speaker were finishing their careers as teammates on the Philadelphia A's, they were accused of, and investigated for fixing games. It never came to anything, due to lack of evidence, I guess, but it was widely believed at the time that they were guilty. I know gambling in the game can't be condoned, or even tolerated, but the point is there are a lot worse people than Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. And hell, in a world where Yasser Arafat can win a Nobel Peace Prize...

The accusations came when Cobb and Speaker were still player-managers with Detroit and Cleveland. After the accusations, they resigned and went to Philadelphia as players. Neither ever managed again. The accuser (Dutch Leonard, iirc) never came to Chicago to testify to Landis on the matter so the Commissioner dropped the case for lack of evidence (something no one has done in the Rose matter). The accusations were in a letter to Landis.

Ol Aches & Pains
12-12-2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The accusations came when Cobb and Speaker were still player-managers with Detroit and Cleveland. After the accusations, they resigned and went to Philadelphia as players. Neither ever managed again. The accuser (Dutch Leonard, iirc) never came to Chicago to testify to Landis on the matter so the Commissioner dropped the case for lack of evidence (something no one has done in the Rose matter). The accusations were in a letter to Landis.

Thanks TL, my memory of the details was a little fuzzy, and I was too lazy to look it up. I believe Speaker also belonged to the KKK at some point, didn't he? Which didn't keep him out of the Hall.

TornLabrum
12-12-2002, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains
Thanks TL, my memory of the details was a little fuzzy, and I was too lazy to look it up. I believe Speaker also belonged to the KKK at some point, didn't he? Which didn't keep him out of the Hall.

I think that's also true. Back in the '20s the KKK literally had millions of members. And their membership wasn't restricted to the south. Indiana had a huge membership. It was a lot more acceptable to espouse racism back then than it is now. Just ask Sen. Lott.

Lip Man 1
12-12-2002, 11:21 PM
Also the "god" to some folks, Bill James, had an article in which he accused Cobb, Speaker and Babe Ruth of fixing games. His title which I don't remember exactly was a play on the "eight men out" theme, I think James called his piece "28 men out..." and listed all those who may have been involved in fixing.

Lip

T Dog
12-13-2002, 12:20 AM
Pete Rose is baseball scum.

While the Hall of Fame opened with Ty Cobb carrying the standard, I don't think you can use him as a standard for the institution. The Hall of Fame, with its location in Cooperstown, celebrated the myth and mystique of baseball as much as its history. Ty Cobb wasn't inducted in spite of being a reprehensible human being. He went in as baseball greatness that the country admired -- at a time when most Americans didn't even realize that their president was crippled.

Writers weren't prohibited that first year from voting for Joe Jackson. But they passed on him because of character. He disgraced the game, at least in the popular imagination. Jackson's career batting average was higher than Rose ever hit for a season, but there was that 1919 thing. Technically, Jackson wasn't guilty, The dynamics were complicated, but Jackson was acquitted in the conspiracy trial after his confession disappeared. Today a confession signed by a man who lacked legal representation, as well as the ability to read what he signed, probably wouldn't be admissible anyway.

Rose disgraced baseball. He knew that Shoeless Joe Jackson wasn't in the Hall of Fame, and he still talked to bookies. He still bet with bookies. A lot. Rose doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, even if the popular imagination doesn't want to admit it.

DVG
12-13-2002, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Also the "god" to some folks, Bill James, had an article in which he accused Cobb, Speaker and Babe Ruth of fixing games. His title which I don't remember exactly was a play on the "eight men out" theme, I think James called his piece "28 men out..." and listed all those who may have been involved in fixing.

Lip

James is a glorified stat geek. Just perusing his stuff makes my
head hurt. Anyway, was this an article, or is it in one of his
books? I'd be interested to see what statistical reaches he comes
up with to back his thesis.

Then again, keep in mind that James wrote that people who want
to see Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame are the equivalent of
people who line up in a courtroom to see the "cute murderer."
I don't support Jackson for the Hall, but I don't compare people
who do to psychologically disturbed individuals. That one clever
comment told me everything I need to know about Mr. "Stats
Guru."

RichH55
12-13-2002, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by DVG
James is a glorified stat geek. Just perusing his stuff makes my
head hurt. Anyway, was this an article, or is it in one of his
books? I'd be interested to see what statistical reaches he comes
up with to back his thesis.

Then again, keep in mind that James wrote that people who want
to see Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame are the equivalent of
people who line up in a courtroom to see the "cute murderer."
I don't support Jackson for the Hall, but I don't compare people
who do to psychologically disturbed individuals. That one clever
comment told me everything I need to know about Mr. "Stats
Guru."

I'm guessing Kermit might have something to say here

kermittheefrog
12-13-2002, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
I'm guessing Kermit might have something to say here

Sometimes it's just not even worth bothering Rich. There are very successful stat geeks in front offices. I think I am going to give up the intense defense of my position because anyone who thinks looking at things like OBP isn't effective is just friggin brick headed. OBP was good enough for Branch Rickey.

Vsahajpal
12-13-2002, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Read my previous post. I said just about everyone. When I repeat myself I tend not to say the exact same thing.

Your argument is ironic considering the crawler underneath every single one of your posts. Rose had his one shot...

Cheryl
12-13-2002, 09:17 AM
Can we ban Pete Rose from this boarc?

Unregistered
12-13-2002, 11:52 AM
a little support from the Herald's Barry Rozner:
Thorny issue

We've always said that if Pete Rose admits what he did wrong and apologizes, he should be allowed back into baseball. But riddle me this, Bud Selig: once you reinstate Rose, what are you going to say to those who argue in favor of Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Rozner Column (http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_rozner.asp)

Jjav829
12-13-2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Your argument is ironic considering the crawler underneath every single one of your posts. Rose had his one shot...

Haha, good point. I only quoted that because it was one of the few parts of an Eminem song that is clean enough for me to put, so I figured what the hell, I'll use it.

Jjav829
12-13-2002, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
a little support from the Herald's Barry Rozner:
Rozner Column (http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_rozner.asp)

I think it would open the door for discussion on Shoeless Joe, but he was accused of throwing games not just betting on them. Even if he is innocent, he was banned for a more serious offence.

Zednem700
12-13-2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What does "hustling white guy" have to do with it? Why would you think his race is important?

I have issues with the rest of what you wrote, too, but let's start with the big ticket items first.

Your turn.


Give me a break, what a cowardly response. Big ticket items indeed. A throwaway line that asks, ASKS not states, whether race may play some role in a popular debate in the United States is the critical point I make. Come on, only that one question in my entire response had anything to do with race, and even then it was in a minor jokey manner. Unbelievable.

The hustling white guy line was borrowed from Baseball prospectus. They nicknamed the Anaheim Angels the "hustling white guys" a jokey reference to their popularity, based at least a little bit in fact. Baseball fans tend to love guys who hustle even if they aren't very good. Its also pretty true that white players tend to be more popular and more likely to get positive press than black players. Is it cut and dry? always true? no and no, but its there. I mean just compare the press coverage of the white surly narcissistic previous home run champ wih that of the black surly narcissistic current home run champ. I am far from the first person to wonder about the role race plays in the Pete Rose mess. Maybe it hasn't come up on this board (since its a White Sox board I don't see why it would) but plenty of people have openly wondered whether the gambler would receive as much support if he were black. To claim that race has nothing to do with how we as Americans view our sports heroes is naive.

To state, as you do in a later post, that I should be ashamed for bringing up race is just mind boggling. Do we live in the same country? Race comes up in one way or another in just about every national debate. To wonder and that's all I did, wonder, whether race has something to do with some of Rose's popularity makes me some sort of shameful race baiter? The extreme defensiveness on your part to my one sentence question only makes me think I might have been on to something bigger than I thought. I didn't say anyone who supports Rose must be racist, but you read it that way. Which one of us looks more like a race baiter now?

Dan H
12-13-2002, 02:40 PM
The greatest thing about baseball is its unpredictability. If we fans think that is tampered with in the least, baseball will suffer a backlash from which it may never recover. We know the Hall of Fame is not full of boy scouts. But betting on baseball is the biggest sin against the sport. (If you want to talk about sins against humanity, that's another thing.) Rose bet on baseball. That's all it takes for me to keep him out of the hall. And remember Willie Mays was banned from baseball during a time he was connected with casinos. It didn't keep him from the Hall, but he had to chose one kind of employment or another. Charlie Hustle made his choice, too.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-13-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
Give me a break, what a cowardly response. Big ticket items indeed. A throwaway line that asks, ASKS not states, whether race may play some role in a popular debate in the United States is the critical point I make. Come on, only that one question in my entire response had anything to do with race, and even then it was in a minor jokey manner. Unbelievable.

The hustling white guy line was borrowed from Baseball prospectus. They nicknamed the Anaheim Angels the "hustling white guys" a jokey reference to their popularity, based at least a little bit in fact. Baseball fans tend to love guys who hustle even if they aren't very good. Its also pretty true that white players tend to be more popular and more likely to get positive press than black players. Is it cut and dry? always true? no and no, but its there. I mean just compare the press coverage of the white surly narcissistic previous home run champ wih that of the black surly narcissistic current home run champ. I am far from the first person to wonder about the role race plays in the Pete Rose mess. Maybe it hasn't come up on this board (since its a White Sox board I don't see why it would) but plenty of people have openly wondered whether the gambler would receive as much support if he were black. To claim that race has nothing to do with how we as Americans view our sports heroes is naive.

To state, as you do in a later post, that I should be ashamed for bringing up race is just mind boggling. Do we live in the same country? Race comes up in one way or another in just about every national debate. To wonder and that's all I did, wonder, whether race has something to do with some of Rose's popularity makes me some sort of shameful race baiter? The extreme defensiveness on your part to my one sentence question only makes me think I might have been on to something bigger than I thought. I didn't say anyone who supports Rose must be racist, but you read it that way. Which one of us looks more like a race baiter now?

If you wish to drag down with you whichever sick moron at Baseball Prospectus wrote what he did, be my guest. We'll deal with him when he pops off in this forum, too.

Words have meaning, Zed. If you didn't mean to inject race into this debate, it was poor judgment on your part to use it for dismissing your opponents' views. Admit as much and we can move on in a civil manner.

Otherwise, you are baiting your opponents with race. Precisely:

Why do people fight so much for this guy, because he was a hustling white guy?

Baiting others with race makes you a race-baiter. Unless you wish to come clean about making a mistake, there is no point even debating it.

The English language is a more precise instrument than what you seem willing to own up to. If what you wrote above is the best you can do, then you really ought to reconsider posting around here. We'll forgive most anything, but we won't tolerate a self-righteous butcher of the language using his own ineptitude as an excuse for baiting others with race.

Is that clear enough for you?

Kilroy
12-13-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Dan H
And remember Willie Mays was banned from baseball during a time he was connected with casinos. It didn't keep him from the Hall, but he had to chose one kind of employment or another. Charlie Hustle made his choice, too.

Mays was already in the Hall when he was banned, as was Mickey Mantle who was banned for the same thing...

kermittheefrog
12-13-2002, 04:00 PM
As Rob Neyer said in his most recent column, how does it make sense to reinstate Rose if he admits he gambled on baseball. The rules say if you gamble on baseball you're permanently banned. So if he finally comes out and admits public he broke the rules we're supposed to remove the permanent ban? That doesn't make a lot of sense and is in direct conflict with the most important rule in regard to the integrity of the game of baseball. I just don't understand Rose supporters, the guy is a sleez and is no way good for baseball I don't care how good he was when he played.

Zednem700
12-13-2002, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If you wish to drag down with you whichever sick moron at Baseball Prospectus wrote what he did, be my guest. We'll deal with him when he pops off in this forum, too.

Words have meaning, Zed. If you didn't mean to inject race into this debate, it was poor judgment on your part to use it for dismissing your opponents' views. Admit as much and we can move on in a civil manner.

Otherwise, you are baiting your opponents with race. Precisely:



Baiting others with race makes you a race-baiter. Unless you wish to come clean about making a mistake, there is no point even debating it.

The English language is a more precise instrument than what you seem willing to own up to. If what you wrote above is the best you can do, then you really ought to reconsider posting around here. We'll forgive most anything, but we won't tolerate a self-righteous butcher of the language using his own ineptitude as an excuse for baiting others with race.

Is that clear enough for you?


Oh I see its my lack of command of the English language that is the cause of my problems. How silly of me. I always thought that a question was a question, but in the English language that isn't true. Thank God I had you to point that out for me.

You see in my ignorance when I asked why do people fight so much for this guy and asked (the question mark is usually a dead give a way) whether it was because he was a hustling white guy, I assumed that people would see a question. A question that could be answered in a variety of ways. One way, if you're painfully uncomfortable with discussing race as you seem to be, could be classified as a positive argument. It would go something like this, "Pete Rose accomplished X and that's why I think he should be admitted despite the evidence that he gambled on baseball." You could also respond with a negative argument, "Pete Rose should be reinstated because he didn't do X, any evidence that says he did was flawed." Or you could have answered responding to the racial part of the question like this . "Pete Rose's being white has nothing to do with my support for reinstatement, he played the game right always giving his all." Or maybe, "sure some people who support Rose wouldn't be so adamant in his defense if he weren't white, but I think anyone with his record should be allowed to be a part of MLB again." Or even "I really don't think anyone supports Rose's reinstatement because he was "a hustling white guy" rather they respect his..." I foresaw all of those arguments and had potential rebuttalls in mind. I did not forsee being attacked for wondering wheher race plays any part in this national debate. I still don't see that I should be ashamed for wondering if it might.


I also failed to see how my question was the equivalent of dismissing anyone who disagreed with me. If anything the only people who it dismisses are the people who really do support Rose just because he was a scrappy white player. You know what, I'll stand by that. I completely dismiss anyone who argues that Rose should be reinstated because he was a hardworking member of the white race. If that makes me a race baiter, fine.

You don't seem to have a problem with the hustling part, just the white guy part. I metioned that players who hustle tend to get bonus points from the fans, and that white players tend to get bonus points as well. It certainly isn't always the case, but I'm not by any means the first person to notice these things. I really wonder if Pete Rose would be getting as much support as he does if he were black. I used to think he would, now I'm not so sure. I don't see how my wondering whether part of Rose's support is due to the fact that he's white is such a horrible thing. An excellent title for a book of American history would be Race and Money (or Money and Race for the marxists). I think history has shown us that race is always a part of the debate in this country. Why should this be any different? Its only members of the most privileged racial class that can operate under the illusion that race doesn't matter in American society. It seems to me that besides not tolerating "a self-righteous butcher of the language using his own ineptitude as an excuse to bait others with race" you also don't tolerate questions that potentialy have answers you might not be comfortable with.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-13-2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
Oh I see its my lack of command of the English language that is the cause of my problems. How silly of me. I always thought that a question was a question, but in the English language that isn't true. Thank God I had you to point that out for me.

You see in my ignorance when I asked why do people fight so much for this guy and asked (the question mark is usually a dead give a way) whether it was because he was a hustling white guy, I assumed that people would see a question. A question that could be answered in a variety of ways. One way, if you're painfully uncomfortable with discussing race as you seem to be, could be classified as a positive argument. It would go something like this, "Pete Rose accomplished X and that's why I think he should be admitted despite the evidence that he gambled on baseball." You could also respond with a negative argument, "Pete Rose should be reinstated because he didn't do X, any evidence that says he did was flawed." Or you could have answered responding to the racial part of the question like this . "Pete Rose's being white has nothing to do with my support for reinstatement, he played the game right always giving his all." Or maybe, "sure some people who support Rose wouldn't be so adamant in his defense if he weren't white, but I think anyone with his record should be allowed to be a part of MLB again." Or even "I really don't think anyone supports Rose's reinstatement because he was "a hustling white guy" rather they respect his..." I foresaw all of those arguments and had potential rebuttalls in mind. I did not forsee being attacked for wondering wheher race plays any part in this national debate. I still don't see that I should be ashamed for wondering if it might.


I also failed to see how my question was the equivalent of dismissing anyone who disagreed with me. If anything the only people who it dismisses are the people who really do support Rose just because he was a scrappy white player. You know what, I'll stand by that. I completely dismiss anyone who argues that Rose should be reinstated because he was a hardworking member of the white race. If that makes me a race baiter, fine.

You don't seem to have a problem with the hustling part, just the white guy part. I metioned that players who hustle tend to get bonus points from the fans, and that white players tend to get bonus points as well. It certainly isn't always the case, but I'm not by any means the first person to notice these things. I really wonder if Pete Rose would be getting as much support as he does if he were black. I used to think he would, now I'm not so sure. I don't see how my wondering whether part of Rose's support is due to the fact that he's white is such a horrible thing. An excellent title for a book of American history would be Race and Money (or Money and Race for the marxists). I think history has shown us that race is always a part of the debate in this country. Why should this be any different? Its only members of the most privileged racial class that can operate under the illusion that race doesn't matter in American society. It seems to me that besides not tolerating "a self-righteous butcher of the language using his own ineptitude as an excuse to bait others with race" you also don't tolerate questions that potentialy have answers you might not be comfortable with.

Your final paragraph finally answers what I've been wondering all along: you really do think race plays a role in the view of at least some of Pete Rose's HOF supporters. Fair enough.

I'm only one Pete Rose HOF supporter. I speak for nobody but myself.

Pete Rose hit safely 4.256 times, more than anybody in the history of the game. This single accomplishment, in my mind, makes him a hall-of-famer. I regret anyone think an argument I make on his behalf would have any motive other than recognizing Rose's extraordinary accomplishment. However, that's their failing, not mine.

After all, I never said or wrote a single word to lead them that direction. To the contrary, they are the ones who stated it based on no more evidence than the thoughts deep inside their own head.

You know something, Zed, some of my best friends are bigots.

Zednem700
12-14-2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I regret anyone think an argument I make on his behalf would have any motive other than recognizing Rose's extraordinary accomplishment. However, that's their failing, not mine.


You know something, Zed, some of my best friends are bigots.


To be fair I never once said that I think you support Rose for racial reasons. I would never make an accusation like that against a specific individual unless I had some sort of concrete proof, "my kkk chapter says go Pete!" for example. I'm sorry that you took it as a personal attack on your character, it certainly was not intended to be that. As for your last line, umm okay.

I still think its an absolute travesty to bring Rose back into baseball. He broke the one rule everyone knew not to break. He bet on games he was involved with, and this damages the credibility of the game as a whole. If people start thinking that even some of the games are predetermined, baseball is dooomed. It was a betrayal of the his teammates, his employers, and the fans. An unrepentant liar who brought more shame on the game than anyone since the black sox. How can we just ignore that because he hung on long enough to break a record? Now Dowd says that he had reason to believe that Rose bet against his own team, but couldn't gather evidence with the time restraints he had. My god what does it take to get kicked out of baseball these days?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-14-2002, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
To be fair I never once said that I think you support Rose for racial reasons. I would never make an accusation like that against a specific individual unless I had some sort of concrete proof, "my kkk chapter says go Pete!" for example. I'm sorry that you took it as a personal attack on your character, it certainly was not intended to be that. As for your last line, umm okay.

I still think its an absolute travesty to bring Rose back into baseball. He broke the one rule everyone knew not to break. He bet on games he was involved with, and this damages the credibility of the game as a whole. If people start thinking that even some of the games are predetermined, baseball is dooomed. It was a betrayal of the his teammates, his employers, and the fans. An unrepentant liar who brought more shame on the game than anyone since the black sox. How can we just ignore that because he hung on long enough to break a record? Now Dowd says that he had reason to believe that Rose bet against his own team, but couldn't gather evidence with the time restraints he had. My god what does it take to get kicked out of baseball these days?

Very well. I'm certainly willing to concede there are racists and bigots who support somebody strictly because of their skin color. Such behavior is prevalent in society. Why this should apply to Pete Rose's HOF candidacy is silly. The guy has credentials, gambling accusations aside, that are beyond reproach. I didn't appreciate being quoted as though I had said anything to imply my support for Rose was based on race--nor had anybody else in this 97 posts-long thread.

As for Dowd, make what you will of him. It has been over a decade since he worked on behalf of baseball, and nobody--least of all a court of law--has seen fit to do anything with his "findings." Whatever "proof" he offers is neither on behalf of law enforcement or MLB. Furthermore, all his subsequent "new" evidence has never been subjected to cross-examination.

After 13 years, isn't it time for Dowd to get a life? He's neither a hired investigator or a prosecutor. He's Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick.

Paulwny
12-14-2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


After 13 years, isn't it time for Dowd to get a life? He's neither a hired investigator or a prosecutor. He's Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick.

Listened to an interview with Fay Vincent this week. This type of question was asked. He feels that Dowd thinks he has an obligation to represent Bart Giamati in these matters.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-14-2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Listened to an interview with Fay Vincent this week. This type of question was asked. He feels that Dowd thinks he has an obligation to represent Bart Giamati in these matters.

That's funny. I didn't realize the Commissioner of Baseball was dead. Is Bud Selig aware of this? Somebody better wake him up before Dowd takes the opportunity to bury him.

Zednem700
12-14-2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

As for Dowd, make what you will of him. It has been over a decade since he worked on behalf of baseball, and nobody--least of all a court of law--has seen fit to do anything with his "findings." Whatever "proof" he offers is neither on behalf of law enforcement or MLB. Furthermore, all his subsequent "new" evidence has never been subjected to cross-examination.

After 13 years, isn't it time for Dowd to get a life? He's neither a hired investigator or a prosecutor. He's Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick.

Well to be fair, its pretty damn unlikely that no matter what Dowd found it wouldn't lead to a criminal trial for Rose. First off, much of the evidence involves first person testimony from the bookies Rose used. In a trial they would take the fifth, unless they were offered a deal. Those that talked would also be considered weak witnesses because a defense attorney would claim they're giving up Rose to save their own skin, or that they're degenerate gamblers who shouldnt be trusted no matter what they say.

Also chain of evidence rules being what they are, any competent defense attorney would probably get any and all physical evidence tossed. After all at this point in time can anyone PROVE that the betting slips are the ones that came from bookie X's office. Do they even exist anymore?

The other reason why it would never had lead to a trial was the fact that gambling convictions aren't that big of a deal. If you're a bookie, the authorities will come after you, but if you're just a guy who made a bet wih a bookie the penalties are non-existant. In some states (I think this is true in Illinois but its been a while since I looked into it) making a bet isn't legal but it isn't criminal. That means a betting debt is not legally enforceable, but you don't go to jail for it. Sort of like selling a kid, its not a legal sale, but most states don't have laws against it.

On top of all this remember that the VAST majority of criminal cases don't go to trial. Only one in 20 cases goes to trial, the rest are plea bargained. The reason why? The standards for criminal convictions are incredibly high, making the process incredibly expensive for everyone involved Court costs, expert testimony, lab work, all of these things add up. The government usually decides to offer a lesser sentence rather than run the risk of an expensive trial whose outcome is uncertain no matter how much evidence you have <cough> Oj Simpson <cough> Even after all this remember that in a court of law, you are found guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent. Innocent means you didn't do it, not guilty means the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also don't think Dowd as Ahab makes any sense. The man had an illustrious career before working for baseball, and it continued after leaving baseball. Again here's a link to his bio, his record is one that many members of the bar would envy. http://www.dowdreport.com/johndowd.html

The Pete Rose investigation is the most famous part of his career and the report that got rid of Rose bears his name. Any time reinstatement becomes an issue, I'm sure reporters go crazy contacting him to ask what he thinks. He investigated and came to the conclusion that Rose bet on baseball. It makes total sense that he would defend that position even today. This wasn't a college debate, it was a serious time consuming investigation.

When all is said and done Pete Rose signed a piece of paper that said the commisioner had cause to place him on the permanently inelligible list. In exchange the invesigation ended. He could have had a hearing before the commisioner but chose against it, and accepted a lifetime ban. Why? The only thing that I can think of is that he knew he was doomed if the investigation continued, and chose to stop it so that evidence that completely destroyed his reputation wouldn;t surface publicly. Why else go down without a fight, why else admit the commissioner had cause to ban you for life?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-14-2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
Well to be fair, its pretty damn unlikely that no matter what Dowd found it wouldn't lead to a criminal trial for Rose. First off, much of the evidence involves first person testimony from the bookies Rose used. In a trial they would take the fifth, unless they were offered a deal. Those that talked would also be considered weak witnesses because a defense attorney would claim they're giving up Rose to save their own skin, or that they're degenerate gamblers who shouldnt be trusted no matter what they say.

Also chain of evidence rules being what they are, any competent defense attorney would probably get any and all physical evidence tossed. After all at this point in time can anyone PROVE that the betting slips are the ones that came from bookie X's office. Do they even exist anymore?

The other reason why it would never had lead to a trial was the fact that gambling convictions aren't that big of a deal. If you're a bookie, the authorities will come after you, but if you're just a guy who made a bet wih a bookie the penalties are non-existant. In some states (I think this is true in Illinois but its been a while since I looked into it) making a bet isn't legal but it isn't criminal. That means a betting debt is not legally enforceable, but you don't go to jail for it. Sort of like selling a kid, its not a legal sale, but most states don't have laws against it.

On top of all this remember that the VAST majority of criminal cases don't go to trial. Only one in 20 cases goes to trial, the rest are plea bargained. The reason why? The standards for criminal convictions are incredibly high, making the process incredibly expensive for everyone involved Court costs, expert testimony, lab work, all of these things add up. The government usually decides to offer a lesser sentence rather than run the risk of an expensive trial whose outcome is uncertain no matter how much evidence you have <cough> Oj Simpson <cough> Even after all this remember that in a court of law, you are found guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent. Innocent means you didn't do it, not guilty means the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also don't think Dowd as Ahab makes any sense. The man had an illustrious career before working for baseball, and it continued after leaving baseball. Again here's a link to his bio, his record is one that many members of the bar would envy. http://www.dowdreport.com/johndowd.html

The Pete Rose investigation is the most famous part of his career and the report that got rid of Rose bears his name. Any time reinstatement becomes an issue, I'm sure reporters go crazy contacting him to ask what he thinks. He investigated and came to the conclusion that Rose bet on baseball. It makes total sense that he would defend that position even today. This wasn't a college debate, it was a serious time consuming investigation.

When all is said and done Pete Rose signed a piece of paper that said the commisioner had cause to place him on the permanently inelligible list. In exchange the invesigation ended. He could have had a hearing before the commisioner but chose against it, and accepted a lifetime ban. Why? The only thing that I can think of is that he knew he was doomed if the investigation continued, and chose to stop it so that evidence that completely destroyed his reputation wouldn;t surface publicly. Why else go down without a fight, why else admit the commissioner had cause to ban you for life?

Look, Pete Rose didn't sign that agreement with himself. The Commissioner of Baseball signed it, too. If Bart Giamatti felt Dowd's investigation was so important, nobody was holding a gun to his head to make him sign that plea bargain agreement. Right?

It's silly to suggest Pete Rose was looking out for his own interests, but not Bart Giamatti for baseball's. Both sides accept it because it's in their mutual interests. That's what a plea bargain is.

As for Dowd's career, it certainly wouldn't be sullied if he wasn't still chasing Rose--without any charge from either MLB or law enforcement--for the past 10+ years. That's what makes him Captain Ahab chasing the evil whale. His cause was lost the moment Giamatti took the deal. That's not Pete Rose's fault.

Zednem700
12-14-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Look, Pete Rose didn't sign that agreement with himself. The Commissioner of Baseball signed it, too. If Bart Giamatti felt Dowd's investigation was so important, nobody was holding a gun to his head to make him sign that plea bargain agreement. Right?

It's silly to suggest Pete Rose was looking out for his own interests, but not Bart Giamatti for baseball's. Both sides accept it because it's in their mutual interests. That's what a plea bargain is.

As for Dowd's career, it certainly wouldn't be sullied if he wasn't still chasing Rose--without any charge from either MLB or law enforcement--for the past 10+ years. That's what makes him Captain Ahab chasing the evil whale. His cause was lost the moment Giamatti took the deal. That's not Pete Rose's fault.


What cause? Dowd was hired to do an investigation he did, and turned over a report when the commisioner asked for it. He feels there was more out there, but a job's a job. To use the legal example, prosecutors are often required to start a case, indict a man, whatever before all the evidence is gathered. The public demands quick justice so you go with what you got. Dowd was told to investigate whether Rose was involved in gambling and other activities that would shame the game. he found a bunch of evidence and was continuing his investigation when the commissioner thought it was best to move the issue forward and issue a report. Dowd wrote one up and his job was done. He hasn't been seeking out the press trying to screw Pete Rose. He talks about the issue when people ask, but what would you have him do, refuse to speak about the incredibly famous, publicly known investigation?

Yeah Giamatti accepted the "plea", because, as it says in the agreement, he felt it was better for baseball to just end it. he had cause to ban Rose for life, and Pete Rose agreed to that when he signed the agreement. If Rose didn't agree to the plea, Dowd would have been told to continue his investigation unil they had every bit of evidence against Pete Rose that they could find. Rose had the right to a hearing (another thing he signed away in the agreement) and if you have the option, you go into an adversarial situation like that with every bit of evidence you can get your hands on. On top of this Rose was suing Giamatti. I don't know the specifics, but the wording of the agreement leads me to believe that he was challenging the commisioner's authority to investigate and/or ban people for life. Equal protecion and trust issues would have been involved, it would have taken years to get through the courts, cost baseball millions, and in a worst case scenario, denied the commisioner all authority to mete out punishment.

So Giamatti wants Rose out of the game because he felt that he gambled on baseball. Rose was doing everything he could to stop this, including suing Giamatti to claim that he had no authority to do so (again this is an educated assumption from the wording of the agreement). The two sides come to an agreement where Rose drops his court case, accepts permanent ineligibility, but doesn't admit betting on the game. On Giamatti's side, he gives up the right to gather still more evidence against Rose. Giamatti could have denied Rose the "plea" but it would have just denied the inevitable and would have brought even more harm to baseball. The agreement got the same result, without the hassle. Rose is gone, and without a long battle where every despicable thing Rose did gets aired out on the front pages, embarassing baseball for years. Both sides basically get thesame thing, an end to an investigation that had already shown that Pete Rose deserved to be banned from baseball. He didn't get Rose to admit gambling, but he DID get Rose to admit that the commissioner had cause to ban Rose for life. Rose has the right to appeal, but it wasn't a special clause. Rule 15(C) allows a player to appeal, and the agreement said that Rose had the right to appeal just like anyone else. Rose in the agreement also doesn't deny that he bet on baseball. It specifically says that Rose neither admits nor denies that he bet on baseball. Its the equivalent of pleading nolo contendre.

To me this is the plea agreement only a guilty man would make. Why would you give up your right to air your side of the story? Why would you admit that you deserved to be banned from baseball? Why would you agree to those things in exchange for the commisioner not specifically stating that you bet on the game, and his stopping all investigation into whether you did bet on the game. Heck the agreement doesn't even deny the gambling it, just lets it float in the ether, neither confirmed nor denied. Pete Rose himself admitted he should be placed on the permanently inelligible list, I don't disagree with him.

TornLabrum
12-15-2002, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Zednem700
What cause? Dowd was hired to do an investigation he did, and turned over a report when the commisioner asked for it. He feels there was more out there, but a job's a job. To use the legal example, prosecutors are often required to start a case, indict a man, whatever before all the evidence is gathered. The public demands quick justice so you go with what you got. Dowd was told to investigate whether Rose was involved in gambling and other activities that would shame the game. he found a bunch of evidence and was continuing his investigation when the commissioner thought it was best to move the issue forward and issue a report. Dowd wrote one up and his job was done. He hasn't been seeking out the press trying to screw Pete Rose. He talks about the issue when people ask, but what would you have him do, refuse to speak about the incredibly famous, publicly known investigation?

Yeah Giamatti accepted the "plea", because, as it says in the agreement, he felt it was better for baseball to just end it. he had cause to ban Rose for life, and Pete Rose agreed to that when he signed the agreement. If Rose didn't agree to the plea, Dowd would have been told to continue his investigation unil they had every bit of evidence against Pete Rose that they could find. Rose had the right to a hearing (another thing he signed away in the agreement) and if you have the option, you go into an adversarial situation like that with every bit of evidence you can get your hands on. On top of this Rose was suing Giamatti. I don't know the specifics, but the wording of the agreement leads me to believe that he was challenging the commisioner's authority to investigate and/or ban people for life. Equal protecion and trust issues would have been involved, it would have taken years to get through the courts, cost baseball millions, and in a worst case scenario, denied the commisioner all authority to mete out punishment.

So Giamatti wants Rose out of the game because he felt that he gambled on baseball. Rose was doing everything he could to stop this, including suing Giamatti to claim that he had no authority to do so (again this is an educated assumption from the wording of the agreement). The two sides come to an agreement where Rose drops his court case, accepts permanent ineligibility, but doesn't admit betting on the game. On Giamatti's side, he gives up the right to gather still more evidence against Rose. Giamatti could have denied Rose the "plea" but it would have just denied the inevitable and would have brought even more harm to baseball. The agreement got the same result, without the hassle. Rose is gone, and without a long battle where every despicable thing Rose did gets aired out on the front pages, embarassing baseball for years. Both sides basically get thesame thing, an end to an investigation that had already shown that Pete Rose deserved to be banned from baseball. He didn't get Rose to admit gambling, but he DID get Rose to admit that the commissioner had cause to ban Rose for life. Rose has the right to appeal, but it wasn't a special clause. Rule 15(C) allows a player to appeal, and the agreement said that Rose had the right to appeal just like anyone else. Rose in the agreement also doesn't deny that he bet on baseball. It specifically says that Rose neither admits nor denies that he bet on baseball. Its the equivalent of pleading nolo contendre.

To me this is the plea agreement only a guilty man would make. Why would you give up your right to air your side of the story? Why would you admit that you deserved to be banned from baseball? Why would you agree to those things in exchange for the commisioner not specifically stating that you bet on the game, and his stopping all investigation into whether you did bet on the game. Heck the agreement doesn't even deny the gambling it, just lets it float in the ether, neither confirmed nor denied. Pete Rose himself admitted he should be placed on the permanently inelligible list, I don't disagree with him.

Excellent summary of the facts of the case.

Lip Man 1
12-15-2002, 12:50 AM
Guys:

Just a few points...

1.I recommend reading the chapter on the Rose situation in the excellent book "Lords Of The Realm" by John Helyar.

2. Dowd recanted all of his latest accusations to the New York Daily News on Friday. This came after MLB basically contacted him and Vincent and said to keep their noses out of business that no longer concerns them. (You can read the story yourself on ESPN.com)

3. As someone in MLB said, if Selig gave any creedence to Dowd's latest acqusations do you think for a second he would even be considering this reinstating Rose (Good point...)

4. I personally like Fay Vincent but in this matter his blind loyalty to Giamatti is clouding his judgement. After all, Vincent LITERALLY has said he feels that Rose killed his best friend. (While ignoring the fact that Giamatti had gained a lot of weight and was smoking three packs a day, as reported in Lords of The Realm.

Just for what it's worth.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Zednem700
What cause? Dowd was hired to do an investigation he did, and turned over a report when the commisioner asked for it. He feels there was more out there, but a job's a job. To use the legal example, prosecutors are often required to start a case, indict a man, whatever before all the evidence is gathered. The public demands quick justice so you go with what you got. Dowd was told to investigate whether Rose was involved in gambling and other activities that would shame the game. he found a bunch of evidence and was continuing his investigation when the commissioner thought it was best to move the issue forward and issue a report. Dowd wrote one up and his job was done. He hasn't been seeking out the press trying to screw Pete Rose. He talks about the issue when people ask, but what would you have him do, refuse to speak about the incredibly famous, publicly known investigation?

Yeah Giamatti accepted the "plea", because, as it says in the agreement, he felt it was better for baseball to just end it. he had cause to ban Rose for life, and Pete Rose agreed to that when he signed the agreement. If Rose didn't agree to the plea, Dowd would have been told to continue his investigation unil they had every bit of evidence against Pete Rose that they could find. Rose had the right to a hearing (another thing he signed away in the agreement) and if you have the option, you go into an adversarial situation like that with every bit of evidence you can get your hands on. On top of this Rose was suing Giamatti. I don't know the specifics, but the wording of the agreement leads me to believe that he was challenging the commisioner's authority to investigate and/or ban people for life. Equal protecion and trust issues would have been involved, it would have taken years to get through the courts, cost baseball millions, and in a worst case scenario, denied the commisioner all authority to mete out punishment.

So Giamatti wants Rose out of the game because he felt that he gambled on baseball. Rose was doing everything he could to stop this, including suing Giamatti to claim that he had no authority to do so (again this is an educated assumption from the wording of the agreement). The two sides come to an agreement where Rose drops his court case, accepts permanent ineligibility, but doesn't admit betting on the game. On Giamatti's side, he gives up the right to gather still more evidence against Rose. Giamatti could have denied Rose the "plea" but it would have just denied the inevitable and would have brought even more harm to baseball. The agreement got the same result, without the hassle. Rose is gone, and without a long battle where every despicable thing Rose did gets aired out on the front pages, embarassing baseball for years. Both sides basically get thesame thing, an end to an investigation that had already shown that Pete Rose deserved to be banned from baseball. He didn't get Rose to admit gambling, but he DID get Rose to admit that the commissioner had cause to ban Rose for life. Rose has the right to appeal, but it wasn't a special clause. Rule 15(C) allows a player to appeal, and the agreement said that Rose had the right to appeal just like anyone else. Rose in the agreement also doesn't deny that he bet on baseball. It specifically says that Rose neither admits nor denies that he bet on baseball. Its the equivalent of pleading nolo contendre.

To me this is the plea agreement only a guilty man would make. Why would you give up your right to air your side of the story? Why would you admit that you deserved to be banned from baseball? Why would you agree to those things in exchange for the commisioner not specifically stating that you bet on the game, and his stopping all investigation into whether you did bet on the game. Heck the agreement doesn't even deny the gambling it, just lets it float in the ether, neither confirmed nor denied. Pete Rose himself admitted he should be placed on the permanently inelligible list, I don't disagree with him.

Unfortunately for Dowd, it wasn't his decision to make whether MLB reached a plea bargain with Rose. As far a baseball is concerned, the Dowd Report is done and over. The only person still fighting about its relevance is Dowd himself.

If the Commissioner of Baseball chooses to reinstate Rose, there isn't one damned thing Dowd can do about it--same as the day Bart Giamatti reached a plea bargain agreement. It's not Dowd's choice. Why do we have to keep revisiting this detail? Everything hinges on it.

Rose denied betting on baseball, and baseball officially made no finding he bet on baseball. That was the deal Rose and Giamatti struck. As it turns out, Rose and his lawyers were fools to accept the deal, because Giamatti immediately reneged on it. It was only within the parameters of this broken deal that Rose voluntarily accepted banishment. Why must I keep reminding you it was BASEBALL who agreed to this, too?

Today Dowd is on his own, making charges without an ounce of weight from either MLB or law enforcement. It's a personal thing for him--and no less than Faye Vincent admits as much, as Paulwny's earlier posts notes. He has appointed himself the official mouthpiece of a dead man--but it's not the dead man's choice-- it's the Commissioner of Baseball's choice. The Commissioner is Bud Selig, not the rotting body of Bart Giamatti mouldering in a grave, LOL!

If Dowd is the paragon of rational jurisprudence you believe he is, I should think he would be big enough to own up to this and stop his mindless pursuit of the matter. His services have been rendered, and nobody (except him) cares to hear any more.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Excellent summary of the facts of the case.

That's a laugh. As long-winded as he was, he failed to mention the very source of MLB choosing a plea bargain with Rose. Bart Giamatti tried to tamper with a federal judge before sentencing one of Dowd's key witnesses against Rose, a convicted felon by the name of Ron Peters.

Who drafted the letter for Giamatti? That paragon of jurisprudence, John Dowd of course. Now does it make more sense why MLB was anxious to cut a deal and get this episode over with? They had something to lose, too. Sheesh...

Look, the two of you really ought to read Helyar's Lords of the Realm. It's 100-times more balanced than the one-sided silliness you keep referencing from Dowd.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Guys:

Just a few points...

1.I recommend reading the chapter on the Rose situation in the excellent book "Lords Of The Realm" by John Helyar.

2. Dowd recanted all of his latest accusations to the New York Daily News on Friday. This came after MLB basically contacted him and Vincent and said to keep their noses out of business that no longer concerns them. (You can read the story yourself on ESPN.com)

3. As someone in MLB said, if Selig gave any creedence to Dowd's latest acqusations do you think for a second he would even be considering this reinstating Rose (Good point...)

4. I personally like Fay Vincent but in this matter his blind loyalty to Giamatti is clouding his judgement. After all, Vincent LITERALLY has said he feels that Rose killed his best friend. (While ignoring the fact that Giamatti had gained a lot of weight and was smoking three packs a day, as reported in Lords of The Realm.

Just for what it's worth.

Lip


Here's the link from ESPN that Lip references...

Source on Dowd, Vincent: McCarthyism at its worst (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1213/1476238.html)

Gee, I wonder if anyone here would characterize Joe McCarthy as a paragon of jurisprudence.

Dowd, meanwhile, backtracked from a previous report in the New York Post. The newspaper reported Thursday that Dowd thought it was "probably right" that Rose not only bet on Reds games but that he bet against the Reds during the mid-to-late-1980s when Rose managed Cincinnati.

"I was never able to tie it down," Dowd told the Daily News. "It was unreliable, and that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it. I was not trying to start something here. ... I had an inkling that Rose bet against the Reds but I never pursued it and I never put it in my report.

"I had a piece of information that I was never able to finish ... We didn't use it; we didn't put it in our report."



I wonder what Dowd considers an "unreliable" source? We know his reliable sources include convicted felons.

Pretty pathetic. It didn't take long for Dowd's house of cards to come tumbling down.

Dan H
12-15-2002, 07:57 AM
Anyone who doesn't think Rose gambled on baseball is in as much denial as Rose is. His gambling on baseball was the his biggest gamble of all.

TornLabrum
12-15-2002, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Look, the two of you really ought to read Helyar's Lords of the Realm. It's 100-times more balanced than the one-sided silliness you keep referencing from Dowd.

I read it years ago.

TornLabrum
12-15-2002, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Here's the link from ESPN that Lip references...

Source on Dowd, Vincent: McCarthyism at its worst (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1213/1476238.html)

Gee, I wonder if anyone here would characterize Joe McCarthy as a paragon of jurisprudence.



I wonder what Dowd considers an "unreliable" source? We know his reliable sources include convicted felons.

Pretty pathetic. It didn't take long for Dowd's house of cards to come tumbling down.

So who else is Dowd going to go to to find out about Rose's gambling habits, the principal of a finishing school?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
So who else is Dowd going to go to to find out about Rose's gambling habits, the principal of a finishing school?

Maybe if you weren't so eager to believe Dowd's assertions, your natural proclivity to weigh things from both sides would overtake your hatred for Rose (Torn and I have had this debate before, folks). Dowd's evidence is full of holes--starting with the testimony of felons against Rose who Giamatti and Dowd tried to get lighter sentences for. TALK ABOUT A PLEA BARGAIN!!!!

I would welcome baseball to have an impartial hearing of the facts, with Dowd presenting his case and Rose and his lawyers presenting theirs. Then skeptics like John Helyar, Bill James, and myself won't be able to shoot down all the silliness Dowd, Vincent, and you say about Rose.

As it stands, I'll settle for Selig doing the same. The last time a commissioner attempted this (Giamatti), a plea bargain was agreed to which the commissioner immediately broke. I'll take my chances that a used car salesman understands the situation better than a Yale president demonstrated he didn't understand.

But by all means, lets tar Rose without such a hearing. Isn't that precisely what your fellow McCarthyites were doing 50 years ago? That's somebody INSIDE BASEBALL talking about you, not me.

Source on Dowd, Vincent: McCarthyism at its worst (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1213/1476238.html)

TornLabrum
12-15-2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Maybe if you weren't so eager to believe Dowd's assertions, your natural proclivity to weigh things from both sides would overtake your hatred for Rose (Torn and I have had this debate before, folks). Dowd's evidence is full of holes--starting with the testimony of felons against Rose who Giamatti and Dowd tried to get lighter sentences for. TALK ABOUT A PLEA BARGAIN!!!!

I would welcome baseball to have an impartial hearing of the facts, with Dowd presenting his case and Rose and his lawyers presenting theirs. Then skeptics like John Helyar, Bill James, and myself won't be able to shoot down all the silliness Dowd, Vincent, and you say about Rose.

As it stands, I'll settle for Selig doing the same. The last time a commissioner attempted this (Giamatti), a plea bargain was agreed to which the commissioner immediately broke. I'll take my chances that a used car salesman understands the situation better than a Yale president demonstrated he didn't understand.

But by all means, lets tar Rose without such a hearing. Isn't that precisely what your fellow McCarthyites were doing 50 years ago? That's somebody INSIDE BASEBALL talking about you, not me.

Source on Dowd, Vincent: McCarthyism at its worst (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1213/1476238.html)

First, I'd rather be in the company of the people who actually heard from both Dowd and Rose than from the likes of Bill James who while doubting that Rose stank like a pile of manure, sounded like the Inquisition when he wrote about Joe Jackson.

Second of all, I abhor all Tailgunner Joe stood for, and I demand an apology (or at least and extra 1000 words tacked on to my next column, a scathing indictment of Rose's apologists).

Finally, I would point out that Giamatti didn't violate the agreement since he was not speaking as Commissioner but was giving his personal opinion. (Check the transcript of the press conference. He was asked what his personal opinion was.)

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
First, I'd rather be in the company of the people who actually heard from both Dowd and Rose than from the likes of Bill James who while doubting that Rose stank like a pile of manure, sounded like the Inquisition when he wrote about Joe Jackson.

Second of all, I abhor all Tailgunner Joe stood for, and I demand an apology (or at least and extra 1000 words tacked on to my next column, a scathing indictment of Rose's apologists).

Finally, I would point out that Giamatti didn't violate the agreement since he was not speaking as Commissioner but was giving his personal opinion. (Check the transcript of the press conference. He was asked what his personal opinion was.)

Torn, you are not a McCarthyite to the precise extent you support a full hearing of the facts from both sides of the case. If Giamatti honestly felt his personal opinion was apart from what he signed with Rose's lawyers in his final agreement on the matter, he (and you) are sadly mistakened. The Commissioner of Baseball (in 1989) and Bart Giamatti are one and the same.

Had Giamatti, the Commissioner of Baseball, taken such a step under a criminal investigation, I guarantee he (or you) would have been held in contempt of court. In fact, if Rose wasn't so desperate to get himself reinstated by the Commissioner of Baseball, he certainly could have brought a civil suit against Giamatti for defamation of character--and most certainly won. Giamatti's signature is on the agreement!

Rose accepted a lifetime ban only within the terms of the agreement Giamatti signed. A judge would only laugh at your assertion that Giamatti can magically transform himself from Commissioner back to private citizen at his own whim. He contractually agreed to keep his mouth shut on the matter of Rose's gambling--and he didn't.

Again, I trust a used car salesman to know the law better than a former Yale president clearly didn't understand. Giamatti's own words and actions prove the point.

Zednem700
12-15-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Unfortunately for Dowd, it wasn't his decision to make whether MLB reached a plea bargain with Rose. As far a baseball is concerned, the Dowd Report is done and over. The only person still fighting about its relevance is Dowd himself.

If the Commissioner of Baseball chooses to reinstate Rose, there isn't one damned thing Dowd can do about it--same as the day Bart Giamatti reached a plea bargain agreement. It's not Dowd's choice. Why do we have to keep revisiting this detail? Everything hinges on it.

Rose denied betting on baseball, and baseball officially made no finding he bet on baseball. That was the deal Rose and Giamatti struck. As it turns out, Rose and his lawyers were fools to accept the deal, because Giamatti immediately reneged on it. It was only within the parameters of this broken deal that Rose voluntarily accepted banishment. Why must I keep reminding you it was BASEBALL who agreed to this, too?

Today Dowd is on his own, making charges without an ounce of weight from either MLB or law enforcement. It's a personal thing for him--and no less than Faye Vincent admits as much, as Paulwny's earlier posts notes. He has appointed himself the official mouthpiece of a dead man--but it's not the dead man's choice-- it's the Commissioner of Baseball's choice. The Commissioner is Bud Selig, not the rotting body of Bart Giamatti mouldering in a grave, LOL!

If Dowd is the paragon of rational jurisprudence you believe he is, I should think he would be big enough to own up to this and stop his mindless pursuit of the matter. His services have been rendered, and nobody (except him) cares to hear any more.

Look Dowd isn'r running around begging people to listen to him. Reporters come to him! Why don't you get this. They come to him and ask him questions, he answers them. Why is this such a big deal. He isn't Ahab he simply talks about this case when asked, just as I'm sure he talks about all the other cases he's dealt with WHEN he is asked about them. Dowd doesn't go out and beg reporters to please please please give him some press, reporters like writing about Rose. If you want to talk about Rose, the banishment is something that's hard to ignore. The main investigator is still alive and not under a gag order. you would be a horrible reporter if you DIDN'T talk to him. This image you have of Dowd grabbing people to scream at them that Rose deserved it is comical. And not backed up by anything. You claim its personal but offer no proof. you claim he continues to pursue this, but offer no proof. The only person in this who seems to take it personal is you. Dowd answers questions about the case when he's asked abot it. Why is this a problem? What evidence do you have that he's a Rose hating maniac?

I never said anything about Dowd having say over reinstatement that has nothing to do with anything. He issued a report to the commisioner. The commissioner found that the report showed Rose should be banned. Rose agreed, as long as Giamatti stopped investigating, and as long as he did not have to admit betting on baseball.

"Rose denied betting on baseball, and baseball officially made no finding he bet on baseball."

Sorry but that statement is FALSE. In the agreement Rose did NOT deny betting on baseball. I'll quote the exact language for you, I know you're big on the "precise" nature of the English language. " Part 5 section C of the signed agreement states "Nothing in this agrement shall be deemed either an admission OR A DENIAL (emphasis mine) by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball game." He didn't admit betting on baseball, but he didn't deny it either. Rose apologists have to accept that fact when they argue for reinstatement. He refused to deny he bet on the game he refused his right to fight his banishment in a hearing. He admitted that the commissioner had cause to place him on the permanently ineligible list. All of these things are unquestioned facts. What the hell does the fact that baseball agreed to the plea have to do with anything? I agree with it. Rose deserved to be banned forever, Rose himself said so, the fact that MLB agreed with him does nothing to prove that he didn't deserve to be banned. It doesn't make any kind of sense to claim that it does.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
Look Dowd isn'r running around begging people to listen to him. Reporters come to him! Why don't you get this. They come to him and ask him questions, he answers them. Why is this such a big deal. He isn't Ahab he simply talks about this case when asked, just as I'm sure he talks about all the other cases he's dealt with WHEN he is asked about them. Dowd doesn't go out and beg reporters to please please please give him some press, reporters like writing about Rose. If you want to talk about Rose, the banishment is something that's hard to ignore. The main investigator is still alive and not under a gag order. you would be a horrible reporter if you DIDN'T talk to him. This image you have of Dowd grabbing people to scream at them that Rose deserved it is comical. And not backed up by anything. You claim its personal but offer no proof. you claim he continues to pursue this, but offer no proof. The only person in this who seems to take it personal is you. Dowd answers questions about the case when he's asked abot it. Why is this a problem? What evidence do you have that he's a Rose hating maniac?

I never said anything about Dowd having say over reinstatement that has nothing to do with anything. He issued a report to the commisioner. The commissioner found that the report showed Rose should be banned. Rose agreed, as long as Giamatti stopped investigating, and as long as he did not have to admit betting on baseball.

"Rose denied betting on baseball, and baseball officially made no finding he bet on baseball."

Sorry but that statement is FALSE. In the agreement Rose did NOT deny betting on baseball. I'll quote the exact language for you, I know you're big on the "precise" nature of the English language. " Part 5 section C of the signed agreement states "Nothing in this agrement shall be deemed either an admission OR A DENIAL (emphasis mine) by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball game." He didn't admit betting on baseball, but he didn't deny it either. Rose apologists have to accept that fact when they argue for reinstatement. He refused to deny he bet on the game he refused his right to fight his banishment in a hearing. He admitted that the commissioner had cause to place him on the permanently ineligible list. All of these things are unquestioned facts. What the hell does the fact that baseball agreed to the plea have to do with anything? I agree with it. Rose deserved to be banned forever, Rose himself said so, the fact that MLB agreed with him does nothing to prove that he didn't deserve to be banned. It doesn't make any kind of sense to claim that it does.

Look, if the final agreement says MLB finds neither an admission or a denial of Rose betting on baseball, that's no finding at all. Certainly this concept isn't too hard for you to comprehend. Certainly you aren't suggesting the burden of proof falls on Rose to disprove the charges? That's McCarthyism and the Salem Witch Hunts if I've ever heard of such a thing.

What the hell does the fact that baseball agreed to the plea have to do with anything?

LOL! The plea agreement is the very instrument upon which all your other assertions are founded. There is no findings of any kind without the agreement. Beyond that the only thing we have are the charges by Dowd and the denials by Rose and his attorneys. In other words Zed, your entire case against Rose rests on that plea agreement--the one the commissioner broke.

In fact, Dowd is backtracking from statements he made earlier this week that go beyond what the plea agreement stated. Read it yourself. (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1213/1476238.html) Not even he is willing to draw the conclusions you and Torn appear ready to believe.

If you wish to believe Dowd based on nothing more than the charges he levies, mazel tov! The charges of McCarthyism by that MLB insider talking to the NY Daily News has foundation.

Stop apologizing for Dowd. He has more sense than you do.

TornLabrum
12-15-2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Look, if the final agreement says MLB finds neither an admission or a denial of Rose betting on baseball, that's no finding at all. Certainly this concept isn't too hard for you to comprehend. Certainly you aren't suggesting the burden of proof falls on Rose to disprove the charges? That's McCarthyism and the Salem Witch Hunts if I've ever heard of such a thing.



LOL! The plea agreement is the very instrument upon which all your other assertions are founded. There is no findings of any kind without the agreement. Beyond that the only thing we have are the charges by Dowd and the denials by Rose and his attorneys. In other words Zed, your entire case against Rose rests on that plea agreement--the one the commissioner broke.

In fact, Dowd is backtracking from statements he made earlier this week that go beyond what the plea agreement stated. Read it yourself. (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1213/1476238.html) Not even he is willing to draw the conclusions you and Torn appear ready to believe.

If you wish to believe Dowd based on nothing more than the charges he levies, mazel tov! The charges of McCarthyism by that MLB insider talking to the NY Daily News has foundation.

Stop apologizing for Dowd. He has more sense than you do.

As someone else pointed out, the agreement is the equivalent of a plea of nolo contendere in a court. Guess what, PHG. If you plead that, you still face some kind of punishment. Just ask Spiro Agnew. Rose got the same treatment from baseball as Spiro did from the court that accepted his plea.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
As someone else pointed out, the agreement is the equivalent of a plea of nolo contendere in a court. Guess what, PHG. If you plead that, you still face some kind of punishment. Just ask Spiro Agnew. Rose got the same treatment from baseball as Spiro did from the court that accepted his plea.

EXACTLY TORN! And what was the punishment? A lifetime ban from baseball, right?

So what's your point? Rose is making the case to get himself reinstated. He has that right. Furthermore, the Commisioner of Baseball has the right to review the case and take action as he deems appropriate. You aren't challenging this, are you?

The fact is NOTHING was found regarding Rose betting on baseball. That's the very point Rose is pleading his case back to the commissioner over.

Selig is going to make up his own mind, without any further interference from Dowd, Vincent, or appparently anyone else who at least one baseball insider is calling McCarthyism. Those are strong words.

I'm not predicting anything regarding Selig's future ruling, but right now it doesn't look good for your side.

Zednem700
12-15-2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
EXACTLY TORN! And what was the punishment? A lifetime ban from baseball, right?

So what's your point? Rose is making the case to get himself reinstated. He has that right. Furthermore, the Commisioner of Baseball has the right to review the case and take action as he deems appropriate. You aren't challenging this, are you?

The fact is NOTHING was found regarding Rose betting on baseball. That's the very point Rose is pleading his case back to the commissioner over.

Selig is going to make up his own mind, without any further interference from Dowd, Vincent, or appparently anyone else who at least one baseball insider is calling McCarthyism. Those are strong words.

I'm not predicting anything regarding Selig's future ruling, but right now it doesn't look good for your side.


I have no problem with Rose trying to get reinstated. Every player who gets placed on the permanently ineligible list has that right. Its written down in rule 15. That said, I don't think Rose should ever be reinstated. I don;'t believe that anyone declared permanently ineligible should be taken off the list. Unless that person can PROVE that his punishment was unjustified.

There is NO WAY Rose can reasonably argue his punishment was unjustified. He signed his name to a piece of paper that said his punishment was justified. Are you claiming that was beaten out of him, he was tortured, he was drunk or in some other way mentally diminished? If not how can you argue Rose should be reinstated? Do you think no one should be forever banned? Was Rose lying when he agreed that he should be banned forever? Please tell me the logic in letting Rose be reinsated, because I have tried long and hard to find some, but I can't. Emotion, conjecture, those are not reasons. I want one LOGICAL reason for Rose to be removed from the list he himself said he should be placed on.

The only possible reason Rose accepted that plea was because he was worried that the investigation would uncover unquestionable proof that he bet on the game. Otherwise what sense does the plea make? Worst case scenario for Rose heading into the investigation was that he would be placed on the permanently ineligible list. Rose accepted the worst case scenario. He agreed that there was cause for that punishment to be applied. By not openly admitting that he bet on baseball Rose figured he'd save at least a tiny shred of his reputation. If the gambling was proved (and he must have feared it would otherwise why accept the plea) he would have been proved to commit the one act that baseball and its fans don't forgive, well I don't know how you stand. PLease give me a reasonable reason why an innocent man would sign this form. You could argue that in a plea agreement innocent people plead to crimes they did not commit out of fear of being convicted of a more serious crime they did not commit. This does not apply in the Rose case, he accepted the most severe penalty possible. It would be the equivalent of a suspect pleading guilty to a crime that carries a mandatory death penalty in order to avoid being convicted of a crime that carries a mandatory death penalty. That makes no sense.

Finally there was in fact a lot of evidence discovered that showed Rose bet on baseball. THere was the testimony of people who took the bets (yeah they were criminals, but an illegal bookmaker is a criminal by definition) there was the testimony of people who made the bets for Rose, there was the testimony of people who were not involved in the betting but witnessed various parts of it taking place. There are bank records that show that Rose's pattern of payoffs to bookies continued well into baseball season. (I'm not inventing the pattern, Rose admitted that the withdrawals of a certain type were to cover gambling debts, this pattern continued into baseball season) The phone records that connect Rose to the bookies and his runners. On top of all that there are the betting slips, betting slips consistent with Rose's handwriting, betting slips with Rose's fingerprints on them, slips that were investigated by an independent lab and found to show no evidence of forgery. There is a massive amount of evidence against Rose, 7 volumes of it to be exact. Dismissing any individual piece still doesn't get rid of the preponderance of evidence. The only way to get rid of the evidence is to claim some sort of massive conspiracy ivolving the commisioner, the investigator, two sets of bookies who had no reason to conspire together (one sent the other to prison) the phone company (who else could have created fake phone records), Rose's bank (the source of the very suspicious payment records) and best of all, Rose himself. After all it is Rose's own testimony that casts a lot of suspicion on him. Inconsistent answers, evasiveness, and admitting that he was highly involved with bookies. What more evidence do you need. A videotape of Rose betting on his team (but you can fake videotapes) A signed confession saying he bet on his team? You don;t accept a signed statement saying he deserves to be permanently ineligible. the evidence is strong, and there's lots of it. A rational person looking at the evidence can only come to the conclusion that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Any other conclusion would require a conspiracy or something equally complex. THe simplest answer is usually the right one.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
I have no problem with Rose trying to get reinstated. Every player who gets placed on the permanently ineligible list has that right. Its written down in rule 15. That said, I don't think Rose should ever be reinstated. I don;'t believe that anyone declared permanently ineligible should be taken off the list. Unless that person can PROVE that his punishment was unjustified.


Nobody ever said you aren't entitled to your opinion. Whether Selig reinstates Rose is the real question, and neither you or I will be consulted. Having said that, I doubt you'll be happy with the outcome.

There is NO WAY Rose can reasonably argue his punishment was unjustified. He signed his name to a piece of paper that said his punishment was justified. Are you claiming that was beaten out of him, he was tortured, he was drunk or in some other way mentally diminished? If not how can you argue Rose should be reinstated? Do you think no one should be forever banned? Was Rose lying when he agreed that he should be banned forever? Please tell me the logic in letting Rose be reinsated, because I have tried long and hard to find some, but I can't. Emotion, conjecture, those are not reasons. I want one LOGICAL reason for Rose to be removed from the list he himself said he should be placed on.

This is at least the third time you've tried to draw this conclusion about the "logic" of Rose accepting a ban from baseball. For the third frickin' time, neither side had a gun held to their head accepting that plea agreement. It was in Rose's interests to sign it to the exact same extent it was in Giamatti's interests, too. It was in their mutual interests. Both sides signed it! Stop torturing the point.

The only possible reason Rose accepted that plea was because he was worried that the investigation would uncover unquestionable proof that he bet on the game. Otherwise what sense does the plea make? Worst case scenario for Rose heading into the investigation was that he would be placed on the permanently ineligible list. Rose accepted the worst case scenario. He agreed that there was cause for that punishment to be applied. By not openly admitting that he bet on baseball Rose figured he'd save at least a tiny shred of his reputation. If the gambling was proved (and he must have feared it would otherwise why accept the plea) he would have been proved to commit the one act that baseball and its fans don't forgive, well I don't know how you stand. PLease give me a reasonable reason why an innocent man would sign this form. You could argue that in a plea agreement innocent people plead to crimes they did not commit out of fear of being convicted of a more serious crime they did not commit. This does not apply in the Rose case, he accepted the most severe penalty possible. It would be the equivalent of a suspect pleading guilty to a crime that carries a mandatory death penalty in order to avoid being convicted of a crime that carries a mandatory death penalty. That makes no sense.

This is utter nonsense, and I could go on and on even longer than you disproving it. Instead of that, here's one obvious reason Rose would accept such a ban besides all your tortured reasoning:

Rose wants to get into the hall of fame. The only route for him to Cooperstown is through the commissioner's office.

Is that easy enough to understand?

Finally there was in fact a lot of evidence discovered that showed Rose bet on baseball. THere was the testimony of people who took the bets (yeah they were criminals, but an illegal bookmaker is a criminal by definition) there was the testimony of people who made the bets for Rose, there was the testimony of people who were not involved in the betting but witnessed various parts of it taking place. There are bank records that show that Rose's pattern of payoffs to bookies continued well into baseball season. (I'm not inventing the pattern, Rose admitted that the withdrawals of a certain type were to cover gambling debts, this pattern continued into baseball season) The phone records that connect Rose to the bookies and his runners. On top of all that there are the betting slips, betting slips consistent with Rose's handwriting, betting slips with Rose's fingerprints on them, slips that were investigated by an independent lab and found to show no evidence of forgery. There is a massive amount of evidence against Rose, 7 volumes of it to be exact. Dismissing any individual piece still doesn't get rid of the preponderance of evidence. The only way to get rid of the evidence is to claim some sort of massive conspiracy ivolving the commisioner, the investigator, two sets of bookies who had no reason to conspire together (one sent the other to prison) the phone company (who else could have created fake phone records), Rose's bank (the source of the very suspicious payment records) and best of all, Rose himself. After all it is Rose's own testimony that casts a lot of suspicion on him. Inconsistent answers, evasiveness, and admitting that he was highly involved with bookies. What more evidence do you need. A videotape of Rose betting on his team (but you can fake videotapes) A signed confession saying he bet on his team? You don;t accept a signed statement saying he deserves to be permanently ineligible. the evidence is strong, and there's lots of it. A rational person looking at the evidence can only come to the conclusion that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Any other conclusion would require a conspiracy or something equally complex. THe simplest answer is usually the right one.

Of course there was plenty of evidence presented against Rose. That's what the Dowd Report is about. As a special investigator, it's not Dowd's role to pass judgment on Rose; that's the commissioner's job. You remember him? He's the guy who hired Dowd, LMAO!

The commissioner took Dowd's charges, heard countering denials from Rose and his attorneys, and reached an agreement. Now thirteen years later, the commissioner is looking at the facts of the case again. If we're to believe the reports coming from NYC about discussions so far, Dowd and Vincent have already overstated their case, and the worm is turning against their McCarthyite tactics.

Not even Dowd is willing to stick his neck out as far as you're willing to go. I guess he's more sensitive to charges of McCarthyism than you are.

TornLabrum
12-15-2002, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
EXACTLY TORN! And what was the punishment? A lifetime ban from baseball, right?

So what's your point? Rose is making the case to get himself reinstated. He has that right. Furthermore, the Commisioner of Baseball has the right to review the case and take action as he deems appropriate. You aren't challenging this, are you?

The fact is NOTHING was found regarding Rose betting on baseball. That's the very point Rose is pleading his case back to the commissioner over.

Selig is going to make up his own mind, without any further interference from Dowd, Vincent, or appparently anyone else who at least one baseball insider is calling McCarthyism. Those are strong words.

I'm not predicting anything regarding Selig's future ruling, but right now it doesn't look good for your side.

Nothing was ever found about Agnew taking bribes, either. He just pled no contest.

As far as McCarthyism is concerned, I don't think anyone was on a witchhunt against Rose. The guy is a convicted felon. He failed to report income. Now exactly where did that income come from?

There was an awful lot of evidence against Rose, enough where he decided it was better to take the plea than fight.

Now he want to have it both ways. "No one ever proved anything," he claims. "Where is the evidence?" he shouts wherever anyone will listen.

Well, the answer is simple. By agreeing to his plea of no contest, Rose negotiated to keep baseball from giving the evidence. They are bound by that agreement to keep it secret. So Pete cries foul but neglects to say that the agreement he made with baseball is what keeps the evidence from being presented.

Catch 22.

And PHG, you've bought the whole ridiculous scam hook, line, and sinker.

Paulwny
12-15-2002, 07:50 PM
PHG,
Putting aside all the Columbo mumbo jumbo, do you honestly believe that Rose didn't bet on baseball?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum Nothing was ever found about Agnew taking bribes, either. He just pled no contest.

What's your point? Rose still has rights, and he is excercising them.

As far as McCarthyism is concerned, I don't think anyone was on a witchhunt against Rose. The guy is a convicted felon. He failed to report income. Now exactly where did that income come from?

Actually, there has been quite a bit written about the alleged impartiality of Bart Giamatti. There is significant evidence that he had his mind made up before hearing Rose's defense. Giamatti's accusers include the federal judge Giamatti and Dowd tried to tamper with.

You're entitled to your opinion, Torn. The "McCarthyism" charge comes from baseball, not me.

There was an awful lot of evidence against Rose, enough where he decided it was better to take the plea than fight.

You guys just won't give this one up, will you? For the millionth time, it takes TWO SIDES to reach a plea bargain. Like you, I could just as easily say, "there was a lot of evidence against Giamatti, enough he decided it was better to take the plea than fight."

Do any of you understand the mechanics of a plea bargain agreement? I'm beginning to have my doubts.

Now he want to have it both ways. "No one ever proved anything," he claims. "Where is the evidence?" he shouts wherever anyone will listen.

Well, the answer is simple. By agreeing to his plea of no contest, Rose negotiated to keep baseball from giving the evidence. They are bound by that agreement to keep it secret. So Pete cries foul but neglects to say that the agreement he made with baseball is what keeps the evidence from being presented.

The dumbest thing Rose ever did was accept a plea a bargain agreement from somebody who would renege on their end of it. Thankfully, cooler heads will prevail. Funny that Dowd and Vincent aren't included in that arrangement, isn't it?

And PHG, you've bought the whole ridiculous scam hook, line, and sinker.

We'll see who is laughing when this one is finally over. The "ridiculous scam" could well be what Dowd, Giamatti, and Vincent have been playing on the likes of you. In fact, I don't like your chances of prevailing on this issue at all. Your boys are being accused of McCarthyism by the very institution that will make the final judgment.

He who laughs last...

kermittheefrog
12-15-2002, 10:11 PM
PHG I have a question for you.

How exactly was it in Rose's best interests to agree to be permanently banned from baseball if he did nothing to deserve such a punishment and there was no concrete proof that he did?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
PHG I have a question for you.

How exactly was it in Rose's best interests to agree to be permanently banned from baseball if he did nothing to deserve such a punishment and there was no concrete proof that he did?

Rose wants to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, Kermit. He can't be eligible unless the commissioner makes him eligible. His lawyers would only accept a plea bargain that specifically made no finding that he bet on baseball. Accepting the banishment was the price he paid to get the language put into the agreement.

After 13 years, his efforts for reinstatement might finally pay off, specifically because the agreement MLB made with him made no finding.

If Rose's goal was strictly to clear his name, he probably never takes that agreement. But that's not his goal. It's the Hall of Fame that he wants, and only the commissioner can grant him the opportunity.

Do his actions make any more sense to you now?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-15-2002, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
PHG,
Putting aside all the Columbo mumbo jumbo, do you honestly believe that Rose didn't bet on baseball?

I don't know, and anybody who says they know ought to check their facts with the plea agreement that MLB signed with Rose.

What you or I think (or even what John Dowd thinks) isn't important. The only relevant party is baseball, and they've made no finding at all.

Dadawg_77
07-18-2003, 02:39 PM
Man, my memory isn't that bad. Go to post number 60.

I posted this in conjuction with a Rose Trail thread in the parking lot if anyone wants to move it or know why this came back up.

Belated but needed

:tomatoaward

Gumshoe
07-18-2003, 02:59 PM
How can Dershowitz claim to the jurors that he has conclusive proof that rose bet on baseball, when moments earlier Cochran showed the jury that Baseball stated that they "had no official finding that he bet on baseball." If the MLB said that, how am I going to reinterpret data and then change the answer when it was MLB who comissioned Dowd and all the inspecting and suspicion of Rose? Who am I to do that as a juror? Dershowitz is WAY off.

Then Dershowitz at the end asked each juror if Rose bet on baseball. Does that mean their "opinion" of if he did or did not? Clearly, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. Major League baseball said they had no finding of his betting on baseball.
This was very confusing at the end I think for the jurors (because they all said yes, except 1 person).

As for me, I personally think he probably did one way or another. If you read Bill James abstract, he said another guy was probably calling up under Rose's name so that he could place bigger bets. I imagine Rose got caught up. In one way or another, if you asked my opinion if he bet on baseball or not, I would say, yes he did. But in a court of law, there is NO EVIDENCE of that. It would just be my guess.

Similarly, if I'm a juror on a murder case, I can't "guess" that the guy probably did, when there is little or no evidence. That doesn't get beyond a reasonable doubt. It's like the police commissioner saying, "Officially, we never found that this man killed ___." How then can a juror claim "guilty" after someone says that?????

Dershowitz doesn't understand this, I guess. Furtthermore, if you heard Tim Kirkjian at the end, you would have heard the most important part. The only time that even baseball has anything on Rose is during managerial years. He wasn't playing then. Fine the guy is a maggot, but they have nothing on him and I don't care if he lies or whatever, they have nothing on him. He should be in like Flynn, right now. I don't give a CRAP. Once he gets in, it'll be OLD NEWS. Then we can talk about real baseball.

Gumshoe

Dadawg_77
07-18-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
How can Dershowitz claim to the jurors that he has conclusive proof that rose bet on baseball, when moments earlier Cochran showed the jury that Baseball stated that they "had no official finding that he bet on baseball." If the MLB said that, how am I going to reinterpret data and then change the answer when it was MLB who comissioned Dowd and all the inspecting and suspicion of Rose? Who am I to do that as a juror? Dershowitz is WAY off.

Then Dershowitz at the end asked each juror if Rose bet on baseball. Does that mean their "opinion" of if he did or did not? Clearly, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. Major League baseball said they had no finding of his betting on baseball.
This was very confusing at the end I think for the jurors (because they all said yes, except 1 person).

As for me, I personally think he probably did one way or another. If you read Bill James abstract, he said another guy was probably calling up under Rose's name so that he could place bigger bets. I imagine Rose got caught up. In one way or another, if you asked my opinion if he bet on baseball or not, I would say, yes he did. But in a court of law, there is NO EVIDENCE of that. It would just be my guess.

Similarly, if I'm a juror on a murder case, I can't "guess" that the guy probably did, when there is little or no evidence. That doesn't get beyond a reasonable doubt. It's like the police commissioner saying, "Officially, we never found that this man killed ___." How then can a juror claim "guilty" after someone says that?????

Dershowitz doesn't understand this, I guess. Furtthermore, if you heard Tim Kirkjian at the end, you would have heard the most important part. The only time that even baseball has anything on Rose is during managerial years. He wasn't playing then. Fine the guy is a maggot, but they have nothing on him and I don't care if he lies or whatever, they have nothing on him. He should be in like Flynn, right now. I don't give a CRAP. Once he gets in, it'll be OLD NEWS. Then we can talk about real baseball.

Gumshoe

Part of the agreement Rose and MLB had was Rose would take some punishment and MLB wouldn't release a official finding on whether or not Rose bet on baseball. MLB had the evidence, but they just wanted the matter to end at that point. It is when a company pays someone off like the SEC, but claims the agreed fine is not an admission of guilt.

The thing with betting on your team is you call into question the integrity of the game, and without that the game fails. Rose by betting on the Reds did that, I believed he did. That is the reason there is the cardinal rule, no betting on baseball. I know of plenty of people who won't watch college sports because it has been tainted with point shaving and other forms bad influence of gambling. Whether this game while as a player or as a manager, it doesn't matter. Pete Rose caused the integrity of the game to be questioned, thus he doesn't deserve a spot in the Hall of Fame.

TornLabrum
07-18-2003, 04:53 PM
I would also point out that Dershowitz used as evidence a betting slip in Rose's handwriting with little B's notated by some games (for "bet" perhaps?), including a Reds game. The betting slip also had a fingerprint of Rose on it.

That's pretty damn good circumstantial evidence.

Gumshoe
07-18-2003, 05:27 PM
Yes, that seems to be evidence, but no one talked about how muhc of the information of the supposed betting slip had incorrect information. A few of the teams listed that day did not even play that day. It could be evidence, but not conclusive.

I understand what you guys are saying, but Dawg, MLB is the source of all power, and no matter what you say, they AGREED that they did not officially find that Rose gambled. That's all there is to be said. It's on them to show burden of proof and they agreed NOT to. Thus, they lose.

Furthermore, the integrity of the game argument is a practical, leveled argument. First off he's going in as a PLAYER. There is no evidence he did anything bad while as a player. There is circumstancial evidence that he did as a manager . Furthermore, if evidence pointed towards him betting AGAINST the Reds, then that's a different story too. But there isn't any evidence. To say that betting on the Reds and against the Reds are the exact same thing, furthermore, is lunacy. Doing everything you can do to win doesn't affect the integrity of the game. Breaking a guys knees because he didn't come up big when your team needed it affects the integrity of the game. If there were evidence that he bet AGAINST the Reds, now that is a different story ...

Still, the evidence that exists in ANY case is ridiculous, and baseball said they didn't find anything. And "integrity of the game " argument is ridiculous too. Did he cause baseball to be a laughing stock or untrustworthy? No. He was a player, put him in as a player and quit talking about it. Case closed.

voodoochile
07-18-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Yes, that seems to be evidence, but no one talked about how muhc of the information of the supposed betting slip had incorrect information. A few of the teams listed that day did not even play that day. It could be evidence, but not conclusive.

I understand what you guys are saying, but Dawg, MLB is the source of all power, and no matter what you say, they AGREED that they did not officially find that Rose gambled. That's all there is to be said. It's on them to show burden of proof and they agreed NOT to. Thus, they lose.

Furthermore, the integrity of the game argument is a practical, leveled argument. First off he's going in as a PLAYER. There is no evidence he did anything bad while as a player. There is circumstancial evidence that he did as a manager . Furthermore, if evidence pointed towards him betting AGAINST the Reds, then that's a different story too. But there isn't any evidence. To say that betting on the Reds and against the Reds are the exact same thing, furthermore, is lunacy. Doing everything you can do to win doesn't affect the integrity of the game. Breaking a guys knees because he didn't come up big when your team needed it affects the integrity of the game. If there were evidence that he bet AGAINST the Reds, now that is a different story ...

Still, the evidence that exists in ANY case is ridiculous, and baseball said they didn't find anything. And "integrity of the game " argument is ridiculous too. Did he cause baseball to be a laughing stock or untrustworthy? No. He was a player, put him in as a player and quit talking about it. Case closed.

You keep coming back to legal definitions of guilty, which in no way are valid in this situation. If MLB wanted to prove Rose bet on baseball in a criminal court of law, that would be one thing, but they don't. They just want him as far away from the game as they can get him. They succeeded and that is all that matters.

Even if he never bet against the Reds, it would still be a major issue, IMO. What about the days he didn't bet? Did he rest players? Did he use the bullpen differently? This isn't some black and white issue. This is a very gray issue and Rose definitely is in that gray area - by his own hand. In addition, even if HE didn't personally cause the integrity of the game to weaken (which I believe he did), by condoning his behavior or forgiving it, MLB opens up a can of worms. They let the rabbit out of the bag. No professional sports league can afford the appearance of fixing games. You condone betting on your team, it is a small jump to the next level and then a babystep to professional wrestling. All they have is their integrity that the games aren't rigged - that the competition is valid. Anything that erodes that customer confidence is bad business. Rose's actions did exactly that, or even if not directly, who's to say the next guy's actions won't?

Keep Pete out of baseball and out of the HOF, period. Send a message to everyone who is even thinking about doing what he did that it won't be tolerated and it will lead to loss of playing privledges and having your name publicly dragged through the mud. That should deter at least some of the people out there who otherwise would take Pete's actions one step further...

PaleHoseGeorge
07-18-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
....Keep Pete out of baseball and out of the HOF, period. Send a message to everyone who is even thinking about doing what he did that it won't be tolerated and it will lead to loss of playing privledges and having your name publicly dragged through the mud. That should deter at least some of the people out there who otherwise would take Pete's actions one step further...

Absolutely!

BTW voodoo, what exactly did Rose do? :smile:

voodoochile
07-18-2003, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Absolutely!

BTW voodoo, what exactly did Rose do? :smile:

Well, as I understand it he bet on baseball games some of them that he was actually managing at the time...

I guess my own verbosity took control of the keyboard and caused me to do what I did in that post there... :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-18-2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, as I understand it he bet on baseball games some of them that he was actually managing at the time...

Never proven, and MLB voluntarily signed an agreement that specified exactly the opposite.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. :D:

Dadawg_77
07-18-2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Never proven, and MLB voluntarily signed an agreement that specified exactly the opposite.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. :D:

No the MLB agreed to make no judgment, not that Pete didn't bet nor did he bet. MLB officially said we make no judgment on the question of whether Pete Rose bet on baseball.

http://www.dowdreport.com/agreement.pdf

The agreement if you want to brush up on it.

voodoochile
07-18-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Never proven, and MLB voluntarily signed an agreement that specified exactly the opposite.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. :D:

Didn't Pete sign an agreement agreeing to abide by MLB's decision? Well, they decided. Now he wants something different.

I hope he never gets in. And that is my opinion...

PaleHoseGeorge
07-18-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No the MLB agreed to make no judgment, not that Pete didn't bet nor did he bet. MLB officially said we make no judgment on the question of whether Pete Rose bet on baseball.

http://www.dowdreport.com/agreement.pdf

The agreement if you want to brush up on it.

We've been over this before. Dowd loves to split hairs on this one and he would be laughed out of court if he tried the same routine under oath. Whether MLB made "no finding" or "no judgment" or believes "little men live on the moon", no contractual agreement ANYBODY enters into can be defeated unilaterally by one party over the other. What Dowd is suggesting is exactly that.

MLB signed that agreement--same as Rose. If Dowd and Giamatti can't live with the consequences, they should never have accepted the deal. He and Vincent (the self-appointed mouthpiece for Dead Bart) have done nothing but whine in the media--ah, but never in court!--ever since.

Rose didn't hold a gun to their head, a point Dowd keeps forgetting.

Dadawg_77
07-18-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
We've been over this before. Dowd loves to split hairs on this one and he would be laughed out of court if he tried the same routine under oath. Whether MLB made "no finding" or "no judgment" or believes "little men live on the moon", no contractual agreement ANYBODY enters into can be defeated unilaterally by one party over the other. What Dowd is suggesting is exactly that.

MLB signed that agreement--same as Rose. If Dowd and Giamatti can't live with the consequences, they should never have accepted the deal. He and Vincent (the self-appointed mouthpiece for Dead Bart) have done nothing but whine in the media--ah, but never in court!--ever since.

Rose didn't hold a gun to their head, a point Dowd keeps forgetting.

George, you can turn your thought process around. In the agreement Pete Rose drop a lawsuit vs MLB. If he thought he could prove he didn't bet on baseball, why did he agree to drop the lawsuit? If Pete didn't bet on baseball why didn't he carry on with his lawsuit and clear his name for good?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-18-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
George, you can turn your thought process around. In the agreement Pete Rose drop a lawsuit vs MLB. If he thought he could prove he didn't bet on baseball, why did he agree to drop the lawsuit? If Pete didn't bet on baseball why didn't he carry on with his lawsuit and clear his name for good?

I agree completely. In fact, I wish Rose would simply hold a press conference, announce he has finally made peace with the fact that baseball will never give him a fair opportunity to be voted into the hall of fame, then turn the microphone over to his attorneys who announce a $500 million defamation of character lawsuit against Major League Baseball, the estate of Bart Giamatti, Faye Vincent,and John Dowd. I have no doubt he would win--and win handily. Hell, commissioner Giamatti said Rose bet on baseball at the very press conference announcing MLB's agreement with Rose.

Of course suing MLB is no way to endear yourself to the organization that holds the keys to your HOF candidacy. That's why Rose has to swear off the HOF before he can proceed. So far he has been too weak to finally give up the ghost. Selig keeps holding out just enough hope to make Rose comes to heel.

The first rule of contracts: both sides have their own best interests at heart. Rose should have never taken the deal from a pair of double-crossers like Dowd and Giamatti. The commissioner of baseball would have been facing jail time had he not croaked.

Dadawg_77
07-18-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I agree completely. In fact, I wish Rose would simply hold a press conference, announce he has finally made peace with the fact that baseball will never give him a fair opportunity to be voted into the hall of fame, then turn the microphone over to his attorneys who announce a $500 million defamation of character lawsuit against Major League Baseball, the estate of Bart Giamatti, Faye Vincent,and John Dowd. I have no doubt he would win--and win handily. Hell, commissioner Giamatti said Rose bet on baseball at the very press conference announcing MLB's agreement with Rose.

Of course suing MLB is no way to endear yourself to the organization that holds the keys to your HOF candidacy. That's why Rose has to swear off the HOF before he can proceed. So far he has been too weak to finally give up the ghost. Selig keeps holding out just enough hope to make Rose comes to heel.

The first rule of contracts: both sides have their own best interests at heart. Rose should have never taken the deal from a pair of double-crossers like Dowd and Giamatti. The commissioner of baseball would have been facing jail time had he not croaked.

he can't sue or at least can't sue Giamatti. He dropped the lawsuit he had at that time with prejudice. Rose also had the right to appeal of the Commissioner's decision to place him on the permanently ineligible list. Rose could of had his day in court or appeal but chose to accept the deal. In it he accepted that the Commissioner had a factual basis to place him on the permanently ineligible list without Pete nor MLB denying nor admitting/charging Pete of anything. There were no forged Nigerian documents in the Dowd report.

voodoochile
07-18-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I agree completely. In fact, I wish Rose would simply hold a press conference, announce he has finally made peace with the fact that baseball will never give him a fair opportunity to be voted into the hall of fame, then turn the microphone over to his attorneys who announce a $500 million defamation of character lawsuit against Major League Baseball, the estate of Bart Giamatti, Faye Vincent,and John Dowd. I have no doubt he would win--and win handily. Hell, commissioner Giamatti said Rose bet on baseball at the very press conference announcing MLB's agreement with Rose.

Of course suing MLB is no way to endear yourself to the organization that holds the keys to your HOF candidacy. That's why Rose has to swear off the HOF before he can proceed. So far he has been too weak to finally give up the ghost. Selig keeps holding out just enough hope to make Rose comes to heel.


Um, maybe there's another reason he doesn't do it. I mean if he sued, he could make reinstatment a part of the settlement/judgement.

The burden of proof in a civil trial is much less than the burden of proof in a criminal trial. It would only take half+1 the jurors to believe that Rose actually did bet on baseball and he would lose the case (For example: OJ lost his civil trial using the exact same evidence as the criminal trial.).

If there was no evidence, MLB would be more willing to reinstate him. However, if they truly believe he is guilty, they would be more willing to take the evidence to court and prove once and for all that Rose did it.

Maybe that's what that mock court was all about last night. They found out for sure that the evidence (as presented - like I said, I didn't see the show) got 11 of 12 jurors to vote for conviction. Rose must not like those odds at all.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-18-2003, 09:42 PM
MLB has repeatedly broken the agreement by publicly claiming Rose bet on baseball. They signed an agreement and reneged on it. They began slandering Rose from the moment the agreement was announced.

Rose has rights in that agreement, and they have been repeatedly trampled on by Dowd, MLB, et al. Rose can sue, and he most-definitely would win. The issue would no longer be whether Rose bet on baseball, but whether MLB broke its deal with Rose.

If Rose wasn't such a sap--trying to get into the hall of fame over the objections of guilty men--he would stop his HOF campaign and run these people through the public humiliation they rightly deserve.

Personally, I would love hearing all the juicy details from the defendant Dowd for how he and Giamatti conspired to tamper with that federal judge. That would be some priceless testimony.

They are guilty as sin on the charge of defamation of character.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-18-2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Um, maybe there's another reason he doesn't do it. I mean if he sued, he could make reinstatment a part of the settlement/judgement.

The burden of proof in a civil trial is much less than the burden of proof in a criminal trial. It would only take half+1 the jurors to believe that Rose actually did bet on baseball and he would lose the case (For example: OJ lost his civil trial using the exact same evidence as the criminal trial.).

If there was no evidence, MLB would be more willing to reinstate him. However, if they truly believe he is guilty, they would be more willing to take the evidence to court and prove once and for all that Rose did it.

Maybe that's what that mock court was all about last night. They found out for sure that the evidence (as presented - like I said, I didn't see the show) got 11 of 12 jurors to vote for conviction. Rose must not like those odds at all.

You're missing the point. The lawsuit would not be over whether or not Rose bet on baseball. The lawsuit would be over whether MLB broke its agreement with Rose in the defacto plea bargain the two parties reached on the question of gambling. This is a VERY different question.

MLB had their chance to prosecute Rose. Instead they entered into an out of court settlement with Rose. I'm asserting--as I'm sure Rose's attorneys would assert if Rose wasn't stopping them for fear of pissing off Selig and losing his easy path to the HOF--that MLB and others have repeatedly broken that agreement.

Rose wants to get into the hall of fame WORSE THAN clearing his own name. It's really quite pathetic how Rose is willing to be abused by MLB in simple hope that somebody on the inside (namely Selig) will have a change of heart.

Lip Man 1
07-18-2003, 09:53 PM
I personally hope Pete gets reinstated. I'd love to see him manage the Sox (no I'm not kidding).

I guarantee you one thing the players wouldn't dog it under him and I don't think he'd be using a million different lineups.

Lip

Dadawg_77
07-18-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
You're missing the point. The lawsuit would not be over whether or not Rose bet on baseball. The lawsuit would be over whether MLB broke its agreement with Rose in the defacto plea bargain the two parties reached on the question of gambling. This is a VERY different question.

MLB had their chance to prosecute Rose. Instead they entered into an out of court settlement with Rose. I'm asserting--as I'm sure Rose's attorneys would assert if Rose wasn't stopping them for fear of pissing off Selig and losing his easy path to the HOF--that MLB and others have repeatedly broken that agreement.

Rose wants to get into the hall of fame WORSE THAN clearing his own name. It's really quite pathetic how Rose is willing to be abused by MLB in simple hope that somebody on the inside (namely Selig) will have a change of heart.

George how could the lawsuit be about whether MLB followed plea agreement when he dropped the lawsuit as part of the plea agreement. The lawsuit was over defamation of Rose's character.

Dadawg_77
07-18-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I personally hope Pete gets reinstated. I'd love to see him manage the Sox (no I'm not kidding).

I guarantee you one thing the players wouldn't dog it under him and I don't think he'd be using a million different lineups.

Lip

No, Pete can never be a field manager of any team again. If he makes one mistake whether intentions were, first thing on people mind will be how much money does Pete have on the game.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-18-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
George how could the lawsuit be about whether MLB followed plea agreement when he dropped the lawsuit as part of the plea agreement. The lawsuit was over defamation of Rose's character.

Rose entered that agreement in good faith. It's required by law that both parties enter a contract in good faith.

The lawsuit Rose could bring against MLB would center precisely on the good faith MLB failed to deliver in SUBSEQUENT word and deed following the agreement it signed with Rose.

Rose doesn't lose his right to pursue defamation of character simply because MLB suckered him into a bad faith agreement.

If Rose wasn't such a fool for valuing his HOF candidacy over his own good name, he would have sued MLB a long time ago.

B. Diddy
07-19-2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I personally hope Pete gets reinstated. I'd love to see him manage the Sox (no I'm not kidding).

It seems to me that the reasonable thing for MLB to do at this point would be to let Rose in the Hall, yet maintain his banishment from MLB. That way, both parties are satisfied. Rose gets in the Hall and is given his place in history and the recognition that he deserves. At the same time, he is not allowed to coach, own, or be officially affiliated with MLB in any way, which is his punishment.

Assuming that Rose DID bet on baseball (which is likely), he deserves to be punished. He's gone on record saying that he wants to manage again. Take that away from him. Keep him out of the broadcasting booth as well. But denying him his rightful place in history is going a bit far, IMO. Pete Rose did a hell of a lot for MLB and they should at least recognize him for that.

TornLabrum
07-19-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Never proven, and MLB voluntarily signed an agreement that specified exactly the opposite.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. :D:

No, what MLB did was sign an agreement in which they stated that they were not going to come to any conclusion about whether or not Rose bet on ballgames in exchange for Rose accepting permanent ineligibility.

There is a huge difference between saying that MLB reached the "opposite conclusion," which in the context of this thread would mean, that Rose didn't bet on ballgames at all and saying that they are not going to come to any conclusion pro or con on that issue. MLB agreed to the latter. It kept Rose out of court, where he had been (in Ohio) seeking an injunction against the Commissioner banning him arbitrarily.

TornLabrum
07-19-2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Um, maybe there's another reason he doesn't do it. I mean if he sued, he could make reinstatment a part of the settlement/judgement.

The burden of proof in a civil trial is much less than the burden of proof in a criminal trial. It would only take half+1 the jurors to believe that Rose actually did bet on baseball and he would lose the case (For example: OJ lost his civil trial using the exact same evidence as the criminal trial.).

If there was no evidence, MLB would be more willing to reinstate him. However, if they truly believe he is guilty, they would be more willing to take the evidence to court and prove once and for all that Rose did it.

Maybe that's what that mock court was all about last night. They found out for sure that the evidence (as presented - like I said, I didn't see the show) got 11 of 12 jurors to vote for conviction. Rose must not like those odds at all.

The actual decision was 8-4 in favor of Rose's eligibility for the HOF. The 11-1 was not part of the "prosecution's" original case. At the end of testimony Dershowitz made a motion to split the "charge" into two parts, guilty or innocent of betting on baseball and eligibility. This was denied, but he was allowed to poll the jury "for purpose of appeal."

TornLabrum
07-19-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
MLB has repeatedly broken the agreement by publicly claiming Rose bet on baseball. They signed an agreement and reneged on it. They began slandering Rose from the moment the agreement was announced.

Rose has rights in that agreement, and they have been repeatedly trampled on by Dowd, MLB, et al. Rose can sue, and he most-definitely would win. The issue would no longer be whether Rose bet on baseball, but whether MLB broke its deal with Rose.

If Rose wasn't such a sap--trying to get into the hall of fame over the objections of guilty men--he would stop his HOF campaign and run these people through the public humiliation they rightly deserve.

Personally, I would love hearing all the juicy details from the defendant Dowd for how he and Giamatti conspired to tamper with that federal judge. That would be some priceless testimony.

They are guilty as sin on the charge of defamation of character.

You need to refresh my memory on these repeated allegations by MLB that Rose bet on baseball. As I recall it, the question was asked of Giamatti when the agreement was announced whether he personally thought Rose had bet on baseball. Giamatti said that he did. I think at that point he was making a distinction between Bart Giamatti, Commissioner and Bart Giamatti, private citizen. I personally think that that is too fine a distinction to make in such a controversial case, and that just as with the judge in the Peters trial, Giamatti should have kept his big mouth shut.

I know Dowd has spoken up a lot about his feelings on Rose's guilt, but again, he is no longer employed by MLB as far as I know.

I know Fay Vincent acted to block Rose's entry into the HOF which was touted by several sportswriters who are on the selection committee. I don't think he made any public pronouncements about Rose's guilt or inocence there, however, unless you can point me to them.

As for Selig, he seems to want to make peace with Rose, but Rose keeps doing things like being seen in casinos placing bets.

Again, I may have forgotten any public statements by anyone in MLB acting in any official capacity proclaiming Rose's guilt after the post-agreement press conference. I would apprciate being pointed to anything you may recall.

As Dershowitz noted last night: "My client is far from perfect." Very far.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
You need to refresh my memory on these repeated allegations by MLB that Rose bet on baseball. As I recall it, the question was asked of Giamatti when the agreement was announced whether he personally thought Rose had bet on baseball. Giamatti said that he did. I think at that point he was making a distinction between Bart Giamatti, Commissioner and Bart Giamatti, private citizen. I personally think that that is too fine a distinction to make in such a controversial case, and that just as with the judge in the Peters trial, Giamatti should have kept his big mouth shut.

I know Dowd has spoken up a lot about his feelings on Rose's guilt, but again, he is no longer employed by MLB as far as I know.

I know Fay Vincent acted to block Rose's entry into the HOF which was touted by several sportswriters who are on the selection committee. I don't think he made any public pronouncements about Rose's guilt or inocence there, however, unless you can point me to them.

As for Selig, he seems to want to make peace with Rose, but Rose keeps doing things like being seen in casinos placing bets.

Again, I may have forgotten any public statements by anyone in MLB acting in any official capacity proclaiming Rose's guilt after the post-agreement press conference. I would apprciate being pointed to anything you may recall.

As Dershowitz noted last night: "My client is far from perfect." Very far.

I was wondering what took you so long, Torn. Jump on in, the water is fine! :smile:

Giamatti's comments at the press conference announcing MLB's agreement with Rose were DEFINITELY not made as a private citizen, but as the commissioner of baseball, an officer of the company doing business as Major League Baseball. John Dowd's additional commentary at that time were also as Special Prosecutor for that same business concern. Fay Vincent picked up the cause (he was actually the anti-Rose heavy inside MLB from the start) as an officer of MLB, too.

It has been 13 years and all of these men have either died or moved out of their previous roles. If I was Pete Rose, I would have sued them a long time ago for breach and defamation of character. He wants to get into the Hall of Fame. Go figure.

TornLabrum
07-19-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I was wondering what took you so long, Torn. Jump on in, the water is fine! :smile:

Giamatti's comments at the press conference announcing MLB's agreement with Rose were DEFINITELY not made as a private citizen, but as the commissioner of baseball, an officer of the company doing business as Major League Baseball. John Dowd's additional commentary at that time were also as Special Prosecutor for that same business concern. Fay Vincent picked up the cause (he was actually the anti-Rose heavy inside MLB from the start) as an officer of MLB, too.

It has been 13 years and all of these men have either died or moved out of their previous roles. If I was Pete Rose, I would have sued them a long time ago for breach and defamation of character. He wants to get into the Hall of Fame. Go figure.

As I said, I recall the question from the reporter as being something on the order of, "Do YOU think Pete Rose bet on ballgames." He was stupid to have answered, but I think he was making a distinction in his own mind that he was telling what A. Bartlett Giamatti thought was true rather than what the Commissioner of Baseball thought was true. It's a fine distinction, and one that shouldn't have had to have been made. He should have just kept his mouth shut.

As for Dowd, was he answering questions about his report, was he writing for a publication, or what? That's the part my memory is fuzzy on. I remember him making statements on radio, etc. after he was no longer working on the Rose case, but I don't remember any while he was working for MLB.

Finally, I don't remember any public statements by Vincent declaring Rose to be guilty. All I remember is his pushing to have the voting for the HOF limited to eligible players. I don't remember him ever specifically mentioning Rose's guilt, although it was obvious that the then-new rule was, in fact, the Pete Rose Rule.

As for Rose himself, he seemed to place a whole lot of emphasis that he would be able to apply for reinstatement the following year. I would hope that his lawyer told him that this is also in the rules of baseball and that several of the Black Sox, including Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson repeatedly exercised their right to apply and were repeatedly turned down.

For the past decade or so, the biggest mouth I've heard regarding Pete Rose has been Pete Rose himself. He's done a fine job of turning public sentiment in his favor, in part by misrepresenting the facts in the case. How many people have we heard in the past couple of days since the moot court case on ESPN state that MLB couldn't prove he was guilty of betting on games? That has been perpetuated by Rose, and the fact is that MLB simply agreed to make no finding. Such agreements are often found when out-of-court settlements are reached.