PDA

View Full Version : Rose vs. Sosa


Twin Killing
01-08-2004, 03:07 PM
A friend of mine sent the following e-mail to the Cubune and an edited version appeared in the paper today:

I agree that lying is very bad and one's credibility is immediately called into question when lying is apparent. I do not understand the extreme indignation of all the sports writers who presumably read the Dowd report long ago and concluded Rose was lying. The man has a gambling disease that destroyed his life. I'm sure it takes time to come to grips with such an enormous problem. However, Roses' 4,256 hits are not a lie. The same cannot be said for Sammy Sosa.

With well over 500 career home runs when his career is over, Sosa is a hall of fame lock. Any current or former major league ballplayer, except Dusty Baker, will tell you there is no way that Sosa accidentally brought a corked bat to the plate. Any adult can see that Sosa is lying. Where is the unbridled indignation that Sosa is lying? Why is there no outrage that Sosa has made a mockery of the baseball record book by corking his bat and undoubtedly using steroids to amass great fame and fortune here in the United States? Is Sosa any less guilty of outrageous greed and lying? I think not. But will that get mentioned in the Chicago press in these times of cubbie love? No chance. So lighten up on Pete Rose. He belongs in the hall of fame for a great career in baseball. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is the link to the edited version of his e-mail.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/printedition/cs-0401080392jan08,1,4787631.story?coll=cs-sports-print

This happens to capture the way I feel about Rose belonging in the HOF, Sosa, the press, and the hypocrisy of baseball's governing body to conveniently ignore the fact that steroid use is undermining the credibility of the game.

Frater Perdurabo
01-08-2004, 03:19 PM
What a beautifully written letter.

miker
01-08-2004, 03:20 PM
Different rules for different people enforced by different powers. How a player makes it to the Hall is completely and utterly subjective. What was a sin in 1919 may be completely acceptable today.

Does Rose deserve to be in the HOF for his record-setting playing career? I would agree.

Does he deserve to banned for life for not only betting on his own team but lying about it for so many years? It depends on the morals and ethics of the people who will make that decision and that choice will probably be influenced by society's standards.

There is no black or white, just shades of gray.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 12:34 AM
Actually, the issue with Pete Rose is very much black and white. It is clearly communicated to every player, coach, administrator, etc. in professional baseball what the consequences of gambling on baseball are.

Pete Rose's accomplishments ARE recognized in the Hall of Fame. It is not like the Hall is Pete Rose-free. He is just not an inducted member and that is how it should stay.

Recognize the man's accomplishment's, but not the man who broke the biggest and most clear rule baseball has and should have.

Pete has basically spit in the face of baseball for 14 years and is completely self-serving. It is still obvious that Pete just doesn't get it.

fquaye149
01-09-2004, 02:50 AM
this may be...however giamatti was willing to lessen the penalty if he confessed...so apparently it's not quite black and white....

BeerHandle
01-09-2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Twin Killing
A friend of mine sent the following e-mail to the Cubune and an edited version appeared in the paper today:

I agree that lying is very bad and one's credibility is immediately called into question when lying is apparent. I do not understand the extreme indignation of all the sports writers who presumably read the Dowd report long ago and concluded Rose was lying. The man has a gambling disease that destroyed his life. I'm sure it takes time to come to grips with such an enormous problem. However, Roses' 4,256 hits are not a lie. The same cannot be said for Sammy Sosa.

With well over 500 career home runs when his career is over, Sosa is a hall of fame lock. Any current or former major league ballplayer, except Dusty Baker, will tell you there is no way that Sosa accidentally brought a corked bat to the plate. Any adult can see that Sosa is lying. Where is the unbridled indignation that Sosa is lying? Why is there no outrage that Sosa has made a mockery of the baseball record book by corking his bat and undoubtedly using steroids to amass great fame and fortune here in the United States? Is Sosa any less guilty of outrageous greed and lying? I think not. But will that get mentioned in the Chicago press in these times of cubbie love? No chance. So lighten up on Pete Rose. He belongs in the hall of fame for a great career in baseball. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is the link to the edited version of his e-mail.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/printedition/cs-0401080392jan08,1,4787631.story?coll=cs-sports-print

This happens to capture the way I feel about Rose belonging in the HOF, Sosa, the press, and the hypocrisy of baseball's governing body to conveniently ignore the fact that steroid use is undermining the credibility of the game.

Your friend was right on. I can't believe the Cubune printed the email!

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 12:11 PM
this may be...however giamatti was willing to lessen the penalty if he confessed...so apparently it's not quite black and white....

Giamatti said Rose could apply for reinstatement, he never said under what terms he would consider granting it. The come clean and apologize talk came after Giamatti died. Giamatti was very general in what he said.

The fact is that either Pete knew damned well what he was doing was wrong or he was too vain to think the rules applied to him. Either way, 14 years of lying isn't helping him right now.

CubKilla
01-09-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by BeerHandle
Your friend was right on. I can't believe the Cubune printed the email!

He did say they editied it. LOL!

daveeym
01-09-2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
He did say they editied it. LOL!

Yes but I think the edits were fine. Maybe they should have noted that it was edited is all. While you may know it, I may know it and everyone else may know, sosa has never been fingered for using steroids where the corked bat happened and cannot be disputed.

TornLabrum
01-09-2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Giamatti said Rose could apply for reinstatement, he never said under what terms he would consider granting it. The come clean and apologize talk came after Giamatti died. Giamatti was very general in what he said.

The fact is that either Pete knew damned well what he was doing was wrong or he was too vain to think the rules applied to him. Either way, 14 years of lying isn't helping him right now.

In point of fact, every player who is ruled permanently ineligible has the right to appeal for reinstatement annually after one year on the list. Baseball gave Rose nothing in that agreement except a statement that they were making no finding on whether or not he bet on baseball.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-09-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
In point of fact, every player who is ruled permanently ineligible has the right to appeal for reinstatement annually after one year on the list. Baseball gave Rose nothing in that agreement except a statement that they were making no finding on whether or not he bet on baseball.

Brush up on your contract law, Torn. By specifically stating in their agreement with Rose that he could apply for reinstatement in one year, MLB was negating what would otherwise be understood had it simply been left *unwritten*. Namely, that Rose was "permanently" ineligible. The clause is written in black and white and nothing in a contract is meaningless. Bart Giamatti was no kind of negotiator any more than Dowd was a finder of facts.

What a farce this has become. Oh, and Faye Vincent is a humorless curmudgeon. Hasn't he died yet?

joecrede
01-09-2004, 07:12 PM
I'm not necessarily a Pete Rose fan, but the thing that has struck me about this "drama" is how much of a vendetta Vincent seems to have for Rose.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I'm not necessarily a Pete Rose fan, but the thing that has struck me about this "drama" is how much of a vendetta Vincent seems to have for Rose.

Perhaps because Pete lied to his face? Because he knew Pete was lying through his teeth every time he spoke? God forbid someone actually care about the integrity of the game.

Pete is and has always been self-serving. He care about Pete and Pete only. Sorry, but if I were in a position of authority and someone was basically spitting in the face of said authority, I'd develop a chip too.

TornLabrum
01-09-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Brush up on your contract law, Torn. By specifically stating in their agreement with Rose that he could apply for reinstatement in one year, MLB was negating what would otherwise be understood had it simply been left *unwritten*. Namely, that Rose was "permanently" ineligible. The clause is written in black and white and nothing in a contract is meaningless. Bart Giamatti was no kind of negotiator any more than Dowd was a finder of facts.

What a farce this has become. Oh, and Faye Vincent is a humorless curmudgeon. Hasn't he died yet?

Baseball gave Rose nothing. Joe Jackson appealed. Buck Weaver appealed. Everyone who was ever placed on the permanently ineligible list (the list Rose is on) has been free to appeal at least since the Commissioner system was set up, and I believe that there was a similar right before that with either the league presidents or the old National Commission.

In point of fact, Rose got nothing more than the right everyone else on the permenently ineligible list has.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 11:59 PM
Weren't Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays once on that list and successfully appealed?

cubhater
01-10-2004, 12:18 AM
The last couple of nights, ESPN Classic showed Rose interviews from 1989 when he denied he ever bet on baseball. Now his story changes? Honor the man for his accomplishments on the field, but keep him out of the Hall. This guy will say anything to benefit him.

As far as Sosa, innocent until proven guilty even though I feel he's on 'roids. If he (Bonds and others) test positive, either put an asterick next to their names in the record book like baseball did to Maris or don't acknowledge these enhanced accomplishments.

MLB's steroid policy is a JOKE! I'm not sure of the exact details, but counseling for the first time offense and minor suspensions for future positive tests until the fifth time caught? If Steve Howe kept playing for numerous substance abuse violations, why doesn't this surprise me?

Anyone notice last season was the first in years nobody hit 50-plus HRs? Steroids testing or better pitching?

TornLabrum
01-10-2004, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Weren't Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays once on that list and successfully appealed?

They remained ineligible as long as they were employed by the Las Vegas casino(s) that employed them. Once they were no longer employees, they were reinstated. They were never on the permenently ineligible list.

Rex Hudler
01-10-2004, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
They remained ineligible as long as they were employed by the Las Vegas casino(s) that employed them. Once they were no longer employees, they were reinstated. They were never on the permenently ineligible list.

Thanks for the clarification.

wassagstdu
01-10-2004, 10:31 AM
I think that for Rose to acknowledge that he bet on baseball but refuse to acknowledge any guilt or that betting on baseball is a serious wrong is WORSE than denying that he did it. At least denying it doesn't challenge the rule. For Rose to be admitted to the Hall now on the basis of this "confession" would be the same as MLB acknowledging that betting on baseball is no big deal as long as you don't lie about it.