PDA

View Full Version : "Integrity" of baseball


Jerko
01-15-2004, 10:34 AM
I am not saying I agree with Pete Rose, but the last few days, such "saints" as Fergie "you can catch me with drugs in Canada" Jenkins and Gaylord "Vaseline" Perry are so appalled at Rose's actions that they publicly lambaste the guy. Rose is an ass yes, and he looks worse now than ever, but I think people like Perry and Jenkins should look in the mirror before they speak sometimes. I guarantee Perry's spitballs had more of an effect on the outcomes of games than Rose's gambling did. I am so sick of this "integrity of baseball" crap these days it's ridiculous. What integirty is there in corking bats, steroids, MLB owning a team, the Red Sox and Marlins basically owning each other, the same guy getting traded 5 times back and forth (a Red Sox pitcher, I can't remember his name) in the span of a few weeks, a commissioner who owns a team, ticket scalping, er, I mean "brokering", collusion, anti-trust violations, strikes, lockouts, and lawsuits? Baseball is NOT a pure and simple business anymore. It is a beautiful game, but "integrity" is not the first word that comes to my mind when I hear the word "baseball". I know that stuff happens in every sport but when was the last time you had the phrase "integrity of football" or "integrity of hockey" shoved down your throat? MLB has to get over itself.

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
I am not saying I agree with Pete Rose, but the last few days, such "saints" as Fergie "you can catch me with drugs in Canada" Jenkins and Gaylord "Vaseline" Perry are so appalled at Rose's actions that they publicly lambaste the guy. Rose is an ass yes, and he looks worse now than ever, but I think people like Perry and Jenkins should look in the mirror before they speak sometimes. I guarantee Perry's spitballs had more of an effect on the outcomes of games than Rose's gambling did. I am so sick of this "integrity of baseball" crap these days it's ridiculous. What integirty is there in corking bats, steroids, MLB owning a team, the Red Sox and Marlins basically owning each other, the same guy getting traded 5 times back and forth (a Red Sox pitcher, I can't remember his name) in the span of a few weeks, a commissioner who owns a team, ticket scalping, er, I mean "brokering", collusion, anti-trust violations, strikes, lockouts, and lawsuits? Baseball is NOT a pure and simple business anymore. It is a beautiful game, but "integrity" is not the first word that comes to my mind when I hear the word "baseball". I know that stuff happens in every sport but when was the last time you had the phrase "integrity of football" or "integrity of hockey" shoved down your throat? MLB has to get over itself.

I moved your thread because it will probably get a lot of baseball related responses.

I disagree. None of those other acts that you talk about could lead to the intentional throwing of games (well, drug use at it's extreme theoretically could, but I think by that time it would become self evident the guy had a problem).

Gambling on the sport could undermine the most basic thing they sell: Honest competition between top notch athletes trying their hardest to sin. Yes, some of the things you mention affect the "honesty" aspect, but not the desire to win aspect. If you could prove that someone brought up a bat that was too heavy for them to try and lose or intentionally threw meatballs down the middle of the plate that would be a different story, but again it would come back to "why" did they do that. Gambling has the most likely reason to be the excuse.

The people you mention may not be saints and they may have the interests of their wallets in mind instead of whether they want to win or lose, but that is true in all sports.

Jerko
01-15-2004, 12:17 PM
True voodoo, but I just can't stand the millions who turn a blind eye to someone like Corky, who was caught red handed cheating DURING a game, and those same fools vilify Rose, whose gambling may or may not have affected the outcome. I don't think he'd let all his players know if he had a bet on the game or not; more witnesses. Also, Perry was an out and out cheater too and he ought to keep quiet.

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
True voodoo, but I just can't stand the millions who turn a blind eye to someone like Corky, who was caught red handed cheating DURING a game, and those same fools vilify Rose, whose gambling may or may not have affected the outcome. I don't think he'd let all his players know if he had a bet on the game or not; more witnesses. Also, Perry was an out and out cheater too and he ought to keep quiet.

I thought he admitted as much in his book. He said that he bet on the Reds 40 times in 80 days or something. That was all part of the initial investigation. No guarantee that he didn'd do it much earlier and more often than has been shown.

ewokpelts
01-15-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I moved your thread because it will probably get a lot of baseball related responses.

I disagree. None of those other acts that you talk about could lead to the intentional throwing of games (well, drug use at it's extreme theoretically could, but I think by that time it would become self evident the guy had a problem).

Gambling on the sport could undermine the most basic thing they sell: Honest competition between top notch athletes trying their hardest to sin. Yes, some of the things you mention affect the "honesty" aspect, but not the desire to win aspect. If you could prove that someone brought up a bat that was too heavy for them to try and lose or intentionally threw meatballs down the middle of the plate that would be a different story, but again it would come back to "why" did they do that. Gambling has the most likely reason to be the excuse.

The people you mention may not be saints and they may have the interests of their wallets in mind instead of whether they want to win or lose, but that is true in all sports.

Voodoo,

I agree with you, but on the other hand.....mlb tried to shove the whole "tradition" element on us...that and fake patriotism(the eagle flying in yankee stadium in the 01 ws comes to mind)..the league tries to rub off the "purity" of the game, yet is involved in a lot of shady business...it trots out tradition, but is the one sports that has thrown tradition out the window the last 15 years...go figure...
Gene

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
Voodoo,

I agree with you, but on the other hand.....mlb tried to shove the whole "tradition" element on us...that and fake patriotism(the eagle flying in yankee stadium in the 01 ws comes to mind)..the league tries to rub off the "purity" of the game, yet is involved in a lot of shady business...it trots out tradition, but is the one sports that has thrown tradition out the window the last 15 years...go figure...
Gene

All of which is really bad business, bad marketingm bad PR, but none of which could determine the outcome of the games.

Randar68
01-15-2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
I am not saying I agree with Pete Rose, but the last few days, such "saints" as Fergie "you can catch me with drugs in Canada" Jenkins and Gaylord "Vaseline" Perry are so appalled at Rose's actions that they publicly lambaste the guy. Rose is an ass yes, and he looks worse now than ever, but I think people like Perry and Jenkins should look in the mirror before they speak sometimes. I guarantee Perry's spitballs had more of an effect on the outcomes of games than Rose's gambling did. I am so sick of this "integrity of baseball" crap these days it's ridiculous. What integirty is there in corking bats, steroids, MLB owning a team, the Red Sox and Marlins basically owning each other, the same guy getting traded 5 times back and forth (a Red Sox pitcher, I can't remember his name) in the span of a few weeks, a commissioner who owns a team, ticket scalping, er, I mean "brokering", collusion, anti-trust violations, strikes, lockouts, and lawsuits? Baseball is NOT a pure and simple business anymore. It is a beautiful game, but "integrity" is not the first word that comes to my mind when I hear the word "baseball". I know that stuff happens in every sport but when was the last time you had the phrase "integrity of football" or "integrity of hockey" shoved down your throat? MLB has to get over itself.




Here is what people need to realize:

The game of Baseball has no integrity left.

Juicing the ball, the players, corking bats, the smaller parks, the umpires, everything... Baseball has chosen to evolve and market itself in a manner in which it has voluntarily removed any semblence of integrity from the game.

MarkEdward
01-15-2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
True voodoo, but I just can't stand the millions who turn a blind eye to someone like Corky, who was caught red handed cheating DURING a game, and those same fools vilify Rose, whose gambling may or may not have affected the outcome.

Well, it's not like Sosa got away with corking hit bat. He served a suspension (what was it, like four games?). Different penalties for different crimes. Sosa did his time, and now Rose is doing his.

Brian26
01-15-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
The game of Baseball has no integrity left.
Juicing the ball, the players, corking bats, the smaller parks, the umpires, everything... Baseball has chosen to evolve and market itself in a manner in which it has voluntarily removed any semblence of integrity from the game.

I disagree with this. The game has evolved over time, but it is still an honest competition between athletes.

Let me ask you this: what was going on during the games that Rose chose *not* to bet for the Reds? No, he never bet against them, but he effectively was betting against them the days he didn't bet on them. That's not honest competition.
(Peter Gammons brought this argument up on one of the Rose specials on ESPN, so I want to give credit where due. I think it's a great point.)

Hangar18
01-15-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

The game of Baseball has no integrity left.

Juicing the ball, the players, corking bats, the smaller parks, the umpires, everything... Baseball has chosen to evolve and market itself in a manner in which it has voluntarily removed any semblence of integrity from the game.

Can you say the NBA-ification of the League started a few
years back ?? I dont care what anyone says, the Messiah draft pick Fiasco will FOREVER put a black eye on this sport,
there was something Very Shady at how that all went down.
the league has attempted to "Speed" games up, juicing balls,
etc etc, Commissioner owning a team, another team scalping its own tickets (foolish fans still go to the games enmasse), Owner leaving his team Abandoned in the street with the Hood Up because he cant "afford" to run them, then promptly buying another team.

Randar68
01-15-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
I disagree with this. The game has evolved over time, but it is still an honest competition between athletes.

Let me ask you this: what was going on during the games that Rose chose *not* to bet for the Reds? No, he never bet against them, but he effectively was betting against them the days he didn't bet on them. That's not honest competition.
(Peter Gammons brought this argument up on one of the Rose specials on ESPN, so I want to give credit where due. I think it's a great point.)

Here's where I support Rose:

1) Never bet against the Reds
2) He was one of the few competitors in the history of baseball who I thought would play for free as long as he won.

I don't think he ever made a decision as a manager that intentionally effected the outcome in the negative. In fact, I think he probably missed being on the field and needed the extra rush of competition he got from the betting aspect. Extra motivation, if you will...

Randar68
01-15-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Can you say the NBA-ification of the League started a few
years back ?? I dont care what anyone says, the Messiah draft pick Fiasco will FOREVER put a black eye on this sport,
there was something Very Shady at how that all went down.
the league has attempted to "Speed" games up, juicing balls,
etc etc, Commissioner owning a team, another team scalping its own tickets (foolish fans still go to the games enmasse), Owner leaving his team Abandoned in the street with the Hood Up because he cant "afford" to run them, then promptly buying another team.

All good points which support my assertion.

raul12
01-15-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Gambling on the sport could undermine the most basic thing they sell: Honest competition between top notch athletes trying their hardest to sin.

Freudian slip? :D:

Seriously though. I agree with Randar and Hangar on this one. Baseball has no integrity left, and maybe back in the "good ole' days" baseball had a semblance of it, but the fact is, those guys greased balls, pine tarred bats, etc. to get the advantage (not honest competition). What Perry did along with countless others is akin to what Ben Johnson did to win the 100m sprint.

btw, I am not disagreeing that Rose did something wrong, but I don't care what he did, you can't take away what he did as a player.

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's where I support Rose:

1) Never bet against the Reds
2) He was one of the few competitors in the history of baseball who I thought would play for free as long as he won.

I don't think he ever made a decision as a manager that intentionally effected the outcome in the negative. In fact, I think he probably missed being on the field and needed the extra rush of competition he got from the betting aspect. Extra motivation, if you will...

But by that definition, he didn't care as much on days when he didn't bet and thus probably didn't try as hard to win. Did he preserve an arm for the next day when he would be betting? Did he abuse the bullpen on days when he bet? Did he burn out a starter when he had money on the line?

He probably never sent in a pitcher trying to lose, but did he do more to try and win on days when he did bet and thus damage the Reds chances on the other days or through the course of a season by overusing guys to bring home the bacon.

It's a slippery slope and one that should never even be approached, IMO.

raul12
01-15-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
But by that definition, he didn't care as much on days when he didn't bet and thus probably didn't try as hard to win. Did he preserve an arm for the next day when he would be betting? Did he abuse the bullpen on days when he bet? Did he burn out a starter when he had money on the line?

He probably never sent in a pitcher trying to lose, but did he do more to try and win on days when he did bet and thus damage the Reds chances on the other days or through the course of a season by overusing guys to bring home the bacon.

It's a slippery slope and one that should never even be approached, IMO.

but then should Jerry Manuel be banned from baseball for putting out those "Sunday lineups"? B/c we all know he sure as hell wasn't trying to win on those days. Maybe JM was betting on baseball too! :o:

Regarding that assumption that he wasn't trying to win as much on those days--you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless someone did a statistical analysis of the non-betting days regarding his selected starting line-up, etc., know one will ever know whether he tanked it on those days.

And none of this has anything to do with the fact that AS A PLAYER, he still has the record for most hits ever. Players have been elected to the HOF for what they've done as a player, and managers have been elected for what they've done as a manager. Rose should never be considered for anything he has done as a manager, but as a player...that's a different story.

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by raul12
but then should Jerry Manuel be banned from baseball for putting out those "Sunday lineups"? B/c we all know he sure as hell wasn't trying to win on those days. Maybe JM was betting on baseball too! :o:

Regarding that assumption that he wasn't trying to win as much on those days--you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless someone did a statistical analysis of the non-betting days regarding his selected starting line-up, etc., know one will ever know whether he tanked it on those days.

And none of this has anything to do with the fact that AS A PLAYER, he still has the record for most hits ever. Players have been elected to the HOF for what they've done as a player, and managers have been elected for what they've done as a manager. Rose should never be considered for anything he has done as a manager, but as a player...that's a different story.

Your third paragraph is meaningless to me. I first want to answer the question as to where we draw the line in terms of gambling. My answer is that if you gamble on the sport you play in - even if it is not your team you are gambling on, then you should be banned for life, period. That means no official contact with any team and no awards.

You are correct, the premise that he tried harder on gambling days cannot be proven. It also cannot be disproven. The whiff of impropriety is enough.

I don't want to watch a sport where something external to the game can affect the outcome. If that were the case, I'd watch professional wrestling where everything is decided in advance.

jabrch
01-15-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by raul12
but then should Jerry Manuel be banned from baseball for putting out those "Sunday lineups"? B/c we all know he sure as hell wasn't trying to win on those days. Maybe JM was betting on baseball too! :o:


Grrrrrrrr


:jerry
"Well, it is Sunday, we don't need this win. Lets try something we would never try on a Wednesday!"

bc2k
01-15-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, it's not like Sosa got away with corking hit bat. He served a suspension (what was it, like four games?). Different penalties for different crimes. Sosa did his time, and now Rose is doing his.

You bring up another point about the lack of integrity in the game: suspensions. Like Ed Farmer said about Sosa, does the simple appeal of a player's suspension require the league to lessen his original suspension? What new evidence did the articulate Sosa uncover in the appeal process? Nothing. Have a backbone MLB and stand by your original penalties. It's not just Sosa either - the majority of suspensions are diminished after an appeal. Disgusting.

raul12
01-15-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

You are correct, the premise that he tried harder on gambling days cannot be proven. It also cannot be disproven. The whiff of impropriety is enough.


But that's not how our judicial system works. It's like in Usual suspects when they tell the one suspect, "we can put you in Queens on the night of the robbery." And the suspect replies, "Oh yeah, I live in Queens--did you put that together yourself or do you have a team of monkeys working on it."

And I never said he should be allowed back in baseball as a manager or whatever, which is what you seemed to imply. I can see where the people who say he should never be elected to the HOF are coming from, but I disagree. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :gulp:

Paulwny
01-15-2004, 03:26 PM
It's posted in every clubhouse , betting on baseball= life time ban.
If you bend the rules for Rose it'll open the door for any other player who wants to bet on mlb games.
If they suspend or ban another player after allowing Rose back in it'll be "see you in court".

Randar68
01-15-2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't want to watch a sport where something external to the game can affect the outcome. If that were the case, I'd watch professional wrestling where everything is decided in advance.

Voodoo, I know you are a college football fan at the least, so you're telling me the NCAA and it's biases don't have an effect on the outcomes of certain games? How about the Big Ten League Office?

You're being naive if you think those organizations don't affect what happens on AND off the field to certain teams.

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Voodoo, I know you are a college football fan at the least, so you're telling me the NCAA and it's biases don't have an effect on the outcomes of certain games? How about the Big Ten League Office?

You're being naive if you think those organizations don't affect what happens on AND off the field to certain teams.

If I honestly believed that, I would never watch again...

I don't believe they are intentionally trying to influence the outcome of games.

Maybe I am naive, but if you honestly believe that, why do you watch or care?

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by raul12
But that's not how our judicial system works. It's like in Usual suspects when they tell the one suspect, "we can put you in Queens on the night of the robbery." And the suspect replies, "Oh yeah, I live in Queens--did you put that together yourself or do you have a team of monkeys working on it."

And I never said he should be allowed back in baseball as a manager or whatever, which is what you seemed to imply. I can see where the people who say he should never be elected to the HOF are coming from, but I disagree. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :gulp:

This isn't a judicial matter. Rose isn't up for jail time. This has NOTHING to do with the American jurisprudence system, period.

This is about a business trying to do what is right by the consumers who enjoy their product.

If Jewel foodstores thought that one of their deli managers was spitting in every sandwich that was sold, what should they do? Should they try to prove it and end up getting the time some slap on the wrist or should they fire him and blacklist his name?

You are correct, Rose broke very minor laws when he gambled on the sport, but they have the potential to have a huge adverse affect on the sport itself - just like the guy who spits in the sandwich.

Daver
01-15-2004, 05:53 PM
Rule 21 of the players code is posted on the door in every clubhouse,and it explains the consequences,so it isn't like Rose didn't know what would happen if he were caught.

If they put Rose in they had damn well better put Shoeless Joe in as well,he actually served his lifetime ban.

Randar68
01-15-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
If I honestly believed that, I would never watch again...

I don't believe they are intentionally trying to influence the outcome of games.

Maybe I am naive, but if you honestly believe that, why do you watch or care?

I believe it to a certain extent, especially in the NBA, but also, to a degree in NCAA sports where officials are certainly influenced by the league offices. The home-away advantage is more than one can ignore in the Big Ten over the past few years. Foul discrepancies and timings over time indicate a definitive disparity between perceived powers vs the rest. I give you the 2000 Illinois-Michigan football game as evidence. The egregious calls over the final 2-3 minutes of that football game and the lack of action against the incompetent (if in fact it wasn't orchestrated by the league) officials is a clear indictment of the entire process. I will not even touch many of the basketball circumstances that are completely biased in the name of marketing and $$$$$.

Lebron is a rookie, so is Kirk Heinrich, watch a few of their games. Individual players, both to their benefit and in some cases detriment, are singled out as being above the rules of the game or being held to a more strict standard....

It is the same in many modern-day sporting events, and in the case of the NCAA, I believe it is even more-so the case. Why I still watch???? I guess I am a masochist...

True level-playing-field competition is all but dead in professional or major collegiate sports....

voodoochile
01-15-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I believe it to a certain extent, especially in the NBA, but also, to a degree in NCAA sports where officials are certainly influenced by the league offices. The home-away advantage is more than one can ignore in the Big Ten over the past few years. Foul discrepancies and timings over time indicate a definitive disparity between perceived powers vs the rest. I give you the 2000 Illinois-Michigan football game as evidence. The egregious calls over the final 2-3 minutes of that football game and the lack of action against the incompetent (if in fact it wasn't orchestrated by the league) officials is a clear indictment of the entire process. I will not even touch many of the basketball circumstances that are completely biased in the name of marketing and $$$$$.

Lebron is a rookie, so is Kirk Heinrich, watch a few of their games. Individual players, both to their benefit and in some cases detriment, are singled out as being above the rules of the game or being held to a more strict standard....

It is the same in many modern-day sporting events, and in the case of the NCAA, I believe it is even more-so the case. Why I still watch???? I guess I am a masochist...

True level-playing-field competition is all but dead in professional or major collegiate sports....

I agree that the NBA gives "stars" calls. They've designed it that way, and I think it sucks. I don't think that is done to the extent of orchestrating actual outcomes, but it does work out that way sometimes.

NCAA, I don't see it. I don't care for annecdotal evidence and the fact that you are an alum of one of those schools certainly doesn't make your word the objective POV on the matter :D:

Randar68
01-15-2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I agree that the NBA gives "stars" calls. They've designed it that way, and I think it sucks. I don't think that is done to the extent of orchestrating actual outcomes, but it does work out that way sometimes.

NCAA, I don't see it. I don't care for annecdotal evidence and the fact that you are an alum of one of those schools certainly doesn't make your word the objective POV on the matter :D:

The fact that you're an alumn of one of the football "Sacred Horses" also has its merits.

I'm still waiting on the official word on that pass interference call...

Michigan gets a minor penalty for a booster PAYING players COLD HARD CASH on over 600,000 dollars. Illinois goes on death penalty for 10 dollar loan for a pizza and an autographed picture.

TornLabrum
01-15-2004, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's where I support Rose:

1) Never bet against the Reds
2) He was one of the few competitors in the history of baseball who I thought would play for free as long as he won.

I don't think he ever made a decision as a manager that intentionally effected the outcome in the negative. In fact, I think he probably missed being on the field and needed the extra rush of competition he got from the betting aspect. Extra motivation, if you will...

1. As has been pointed out, not betting on the Reds is as good as betting against them. In addition, he bet on baseball. The punishment for betting on baseball is to be placed on the permanently ineligible list.

Back around World War II, the Phillies had an owner named Cox (iirc) who bet on his team (not against them). He was thrown out of the game.

2. Pete Rose, ever since he was old enough to place a bet, never did anything for free, including signing his autograph.

TornLabrum
01-15-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Rule 21 of the players code is posted on the door in every clubhouse,and it explains the consequences,so it isn't like Rose didn't know what would happen if he were caught.

If they put Rose in they had damn well better put Shoeless Joe in as well,he actually served his lifetime ban.

I want to respond to two points that have been brought up here. First of all, the penalty for betting on baseball (which the Dowd report accuses Rose of doing as early as 1985 when he was still a player) is a one-year suspension. The penalty for betting in games involving your own team is permanent ineligibility.

The second point deals with the Joe Jackson comment. Jackson wasn't banned for life. He was banned permanently. That means forever.

Paulwny
01-15-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I want to respond to two points that have been brought up here. First of all, the penalty for betting on baseball (which the Dowd report accuses Rose of doing as early as 1985 when he was still a player) is a one-year suspension. The penalty for betting in games involving your own team is permanent ineligibility.

The second point deals with the Joe Jackson comment. Jackson wasn't banned for life. He was banned permanently. That means forever.

Thanks for the clarification.
Do you know if the children of the 1919 sox were banned? I thought I read that somewhere.

TornLabrum
01-15-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Thanks for the clarification.
Do you know if the children of the 1919 sox were banned? I thought I read that somewhere.

Not that I know of. One thing I've always wondered: Back in the '50s, there was a pitcher named Al Cicotte. I've always wondered if he was related to Ed.

Paulwny
01-15-2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Not that I know of. One thing I've always wondered: Back in the '50s, there was a pitcher named Al Cicotte. I've always wondered if he was related to Ed.

According to the Baseball Library he was Ed's grandnephew.

fquaye149
01-15-2004, 09:48 PM
regardless of what you think of pete rose, his case has little to do with shoeless joe.


while you could infer or surmise or imply that pete rose might have played harder when he bet on the reds, or sloughed off or even threw them when he didnt' bet on the reds,

It has never been proven or even asserted that he explicitly or even implicitly agreed to take steps to assist the other team or impede his own team.


that is precisely what shoeless joe did.


now pete rose committed a baseball sin: he bet on a game in which he was involved. if the rules state he should be expelled permanently for such a crime, them's the breaks. if a commissioner decides to overturn it, them's the breaks too. rules are repealed or changed all the time....o


it's true he blemished the game by raising a lot of questions that voodochile exhaustively and eloquently described...but they are just that: QUESTIONS....we KNOW exactly what shoeless joe did


if PEte rose is somehow forgiven by baseball and elected into the hall, shoeless joe shouldn't...at the risk of redundancy i won't elaborate any more...what i've already written should be sufficient.

hose
01-15-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
I am not saying I agree with Pete Rose, but the last few days, such "saints" as Fergie "you can catch me with drugs in Canada" Jenkins and Gaylord "Vaseline" Perry are so appalled at Rose's actions that they publicly lambaste the guy. Rose is an ass yes, and he looks worse now than ever, but I think people like Perry and Jenkins should look in the mirror before they speak sometimes. I guarantee Perry's spitballs had more of an effect on the outcomes of games than Rose's gambling did. I am so sick of this "integrity of baseball" crap these days it's ridiculous. What integirty is there in corking bats, steroids, MLB owning a team, the Red Sox and Marlins basically owning each other, the same guy getting traded 5 times back and forth (a Red Sox pitcher, I can't remember his name) in the span of a few weeks, a commissioner who owns a team, ticket scalping, er, I mean "brokering", collusion, anti-trust violations, strikes, lockouts, and lawsuits? Baseball is NOT a pure and simple business anymore. It is a beautiful game, but "integrity" is not the first word that comes to my mind when I hear the word "baseball". I know that stuff happens in every sport but when was the last time you had the phrase "integrity of football" or "integrity of hockey" shoved down your throat? MLB has to get over itself.



Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were just elected to the HoF and they over came drug and drinking problems.

We wouldn't even be talking about Pete Rose betting on baseball
if Rose would have came clean and got professional help to over come his gambling problem when Giamatti pulled him into his office 14 years ago.

Rose could have even avoided going to Menard for tax evasion if he would have played ball.

The Deal Pete Rose didn't take:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5052-2004Jan9.html

Good little piece in the Post !!!

TornLabrum
01-15-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
According to the Baseball Library he was Ed's grandnephew.

Thank you very much! I've wondered that since I was a kid, so that means I've probably had that question somewhere in my mind for over 40 years. Now I know!

hose
01-15-2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I want to respond to two points that have been brought up here. First of all, the penalty for betting on baseball (which the Dowd report accuses Rose of doing as early as 1985 when he was still a player) is a one-year suspension. The penalty for betting in games involving your own team is permanent ineligibility.

The second point deals with the Joe Jackson comment. Jackson wasn't banned for life. He was banned permanently. That means forever.



Here is what Pete looked at every day he went into the club house:

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rule21.html

TornLabrum
01-15-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by hose
Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were just elected to the HoF and they over came drug and drinking problems.

We wouldn't even be talking about Pete Rose betting on baseball
if Rose would have came clean and got professional help to over come his gambling problem when Giamatti pulled him into his office 14 years ago.

Rose could have even avoided going to Menard for tax evasion if he would have played ball.

The Deal Pete Rose didn't take:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5052-2004Jan9.html

Good little piece in the Post !!!

John Dowd shows a lot more compassion for the man than many would. But he's right. For those of us who believe gambling can be an addiction, Rose's response is pretty predictable. He's in denial, and has been since he was first caught. He is in such denial that he accepted a felony conviction in Federal court rather than admit the truth.

Here's something to think about. Those people who still want Pete Rose in the HOF based only on his admission (for profit) in his book are simply enablers. They are preventing him from getting the treatment he so desperately needs by feeding those very things that keep him in denial.

Jerko
01-16-2004, 12:59 AM
I think too many people are overstating the "Rose not betting on the Reds at all was like betting against them" argument. Now he's being blamed for NOT betting on the Reds. Well, I know I've never won a bet I didn't make! I don't really think that the players on the teams Rose managed knew if/when they were being bet upon by Rose, otherwise it would not have been kept a 'secret' for this long, no way. One of those players would have come out with their own book 10 years ago if that were the case. I understand the rules, I understand it's posted on "Every clubhouse door", which make me believe even more that Rose's players never knew they were involved in bets by their manager. He may be dumb, but I can't believe he would go into the locker room before the game and say, come on guys, I've got 1000 on you today for 3-1 odds. One of his players would have blown the whistle on him years ago. Anyway, I am not agreeing with Rose, I just started this thread because I am sick of all this "integrity of baseball" talk coming from cheaters, druggies, and a commissioner who owns a team and goes to the birthday party of a guy who had a 5 inch piece of cork in his bat.

Fenway
01-17-2004, 03:39 PM
Retired Boston sportscaster Clark Booth (WCVB-TV) wrote perhaps one of the best columns I have seen on Pete Rose.

Raises some points that many of the "Knights of the Keyboard" choose to overlook

Clark Booth on Pete Rose (http://www.dotnews.com/booth.html)