PDA

View Full Version : Palmero V. Rose V. Shoeless Joe


Tekijawa
08-03-2005, 09:34 AM
Why is there still debate over Palmero Getting into the Hall on "inflated numbers" while Rose is still banned for life. Honestly I see Rafy's case as a worse one than Rose's... Rafy's cheating DIRECTLY effected games, his career numbers, and his longevity in the game... on the other hand if Rose bet on the Reds and against them there was still the fact of the matter that the game was actually in other peoples hands... And what about Shoeless Joe... he "cheated" in 7 games out of his career, not what could be the 20+ years that Palmero may have been on the Juice?

TornLabrum
08-03-2005, 09:46 AM
Why is there still debate over Palmero Getting into the Hall on "inflated numbers" while Rose is still banned for life. Honestly I see Rafy's case as a worse one than Rose's... Rafy's cheating DIRECTLY effected games, his career numbers, and his longevity in the game... on the other hand if Rose bet on the Reds and against them there was still the fact of the matter that the game was actually in other peoples hands... And what about Shoeless Joe... he "cheated" in 7 games out of his career, not what could be the 20+ years that Palmero may have been on the Juice?

There has been a rule in effect since the National League was instituted in 1876. That rule is posted in the locker room of every major league and minor league clubhouse. It states that anyone caught betting on baseball games will be subject to one year of ineligibility. Anyone betting on a game in which they participate as a player, coach, manager, or club executive or involved in fixing the result of any game will be declared permanently eligible.

This rule is not subject to the CBA.

On the other hand, MLB's drug policy is part of the CBA. It has to go through a hearing process and is subject to arbitration.

downstairs
08-03-2005, 10:03 AM
There has been a rule in effect since the National League was instituted in 1876. That rule is posted in the locker room of every major league and minor league clubhouse. It states that anyone caught betting on baseball games will be subject to one year of ineligibility. Anyone betting on a game in which they participate as a player, coach, manager, or club executive or involved in fixing the result of any game will be declared permanently eligible.

This rule is not subject to the CBA.

On the other hand, MLB's drug policy is part of the CBA. It has to go through a hearing process and is subject to arbitration.

Yes, this is true. I don't think the point is to lessen the seriousness of gambling. I agree with keeping Rose out, and anyone else who gambles.

But... is steroids as bad? Or, better put: bad enough to also warrant the same punishment as gambling?

Who cares about the CBA... just because it exists doesn't mean its right.

There is no two ways about it... the one thing the Olympic community has right is its dealing with cheating/drugs. 1st offense, 2 year ban. 2nd offense, out for life.

I would add on that, 1st offense and no hall of fame eligibility, even though you'd be allowed to return in 2 years. As well, 1st offense all your numbers are taken out of the books, as well as any senority relative to contracts and the like.

TornLabrum
08-03-2005, 10:06 AM
Yes, this is true. I don't think the point is to lessen the seriousness of gambling. I agree with keeping Rose out, and anyone else who gambles.

But... is steroids as bad? Or, better put: bad enough to also warrant the same punishment as gambling?

Who cares about the CBA... just because it exists doesn't mean its right.

There is no two ways about it... the one thing the Olympic community has right is its dealing with cheating/drugs. 1st offense, 2 year ban. 2nd offense, out for life.

I would add on that, 1st offense and no hall of fame eligibility, even though you'd be allowed to return in 2 years. As well, 1st offense all your numbers are taken out of the books, as well as any senority relative to contracts and the like.

Members of Congress seems to think steroids are that serious, and they've proposed making much more severe penalties for steroid use than are in the CBA. They are similar, iirc, to those you mentioned.

As far as who cares about the CBA, unless MLB wants to fight a gaggle of MLBPA attorneys and very likely lose in court if they violate the CBA, MLB better care. I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm just stating the reality of the situation.

TDog
08-03-2005, 10:18 AM
Why is there still debate over Palmero Getting into the Hall on "inflated numbers" while Rose is still banned for life. ...


And for people filling out their ballots, "Rose" is so much easier to spell than "Palmeiro."

You would think that alone would give him a better shot at the Hall of Fame.

Tekijawa
08-03-2005, 10:21 AM
There is no two ways about it... the one thing the Olympic community has right is its dealing with cheating/drugs. 1st offense, 2 year ban. 2nd offense, out for life.

I would add on that, 1st offense and no hall of fame eligibility, even though you'd be allowed to return in 2 years. As well, 1st offense all your numbers are taken out of the books, as well as any senority relative to contracts and the like.

I'd agree with this! I don't like the excuse that some of these guys have, "I didn't know what was in it?" Then Don't TAKE IT! I don't know how much these tests cost but I think that after your first offense that you should be tested more regularly maybe once a week. And if they really want to hurt the players make HUGE fines or possibly as severe as voiding contracts and the money would be donated to MLB charities. I bet if this started to cost guys millions of dollars for an offense then they'd be damn sure they knew what they were taking!

Paulwny
08-03-2005, 10:35 AM
I'd agree with this! I don't like the excuse that some of these guys have, "I didn't know what was in it?" Then Don't TAKE IT! I don't know how much these tests cost but I think that after your first offense that you should be tested more regularly maybe once a week. And if they really want to hurt the players make HUGE fines or possibly as severe as voiding contracts and the money would be donated to MLB charities. I bet if this started to cost guys millions of dollars for an offense then they'd be damn sure they knew what they were taking!

One idea I read/heard yesterday was, on top of the player suspensions, penalize the team, forfeiting its next 2/3 games.
The reasoning is that some if not most players know who the users are, since they now will be effected, they along with management will police the game.

Ol' No. 2
08-03-2005, 11:16 AM
I'd agree with this! I don't like the excuse that some of these guys have, "I didn't know what was in it?" Then Don't TAKE IT! I don't know how much these tests cost but I think that after your first offense that you should be tested more regularly maybe once a week. And if they really want to hurt the players make HUGE fines or possibly as severe as voiding contracts and the money would be donated to MLB charities. I bet if this started to cost guys millions of dollars for an offense then they'd be damn sure they knew what they were taking!The "I didn't know" excuse is strictly for PR purposes. It has NO bearing on the punishment handed out. And anyone who buys that excuse is a moron.

They already do lose salary while they're suspended, but 10 days is obviously not that severe a deterrent. I expect after this the MLBPA may give in to Bud's request to increase penalties to 50 days/1 yr/lifetime ban. Also, anyone caught once should be subject to regular testing and not just the random testing already in place.

Flight #24
08-03-2005, 11:43 AM
The "I didn't know" excuse is strictly for PR purposes. It has NO bearing on the punishment handed out. And anyone who buys that excuse is a moron.


Seriously. I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall and hear Palmeiro's testimony as to how he mistakenly got a controlled substance, not present in any over the counter supplements, pretty much only available via injection into his system.


http://www.newsday.com/media/alternatethumbnails/photo/2005-08/18757766.jpg

"Well, you see, I was doing research on where guys can get the stuff so that I could tell them not to go to those places....and I....um.... backed into a needle....yeah, that's it....."

Rocklive99
08-03-2005, 12:10 PM
Great post, I was going to make this point in the other thread. It shocks me how you can be so unsure about the habits of people in the hall/definately going to be inducted into the hall, and not put Pete Rose in. I doubt he bet against his team, and gambling is legal in Vegas. I have heard people talk about how some of these guys still may get in because you don't know how much steroids really help (even though it's obvious that they make you faster (well not sure about faster, but definately more energy), stronger, and give you more stamina to work out, which leads to greater strength, and more energy to last throughout a game and season, an extreme benefit for pitchers who need leg strength). Steroids are illegal, as is speed (the thing a majority of MLB is on), or marijuana (a thing 85% of my high school was on). It's obvious the man gave it his all, if the man can hit, you must acquit!

TornLabrum
08-03-2005, 01:28 PM
Great post, I was going to make this point in the other thread. It shocks me how you can be so unsure about the habits of people in the hall/definately going to be inducted into the hall, and not put Pete Rose in. I doubt he bet against his team, and gambling is legal in Vegas. I have heard people talk about how some of these guys still may get in because you don't know how much steroids really help (even though it's obvious that they make you faster (well not sure about faster, but definately more energy), stronger, and give you more stamina to work out, which leads to greater strength, and more energy to last throughout a game and season, an extreme benefit for pitchers who need leg strength). Steroids are illegal, as is speed (the thing a majority of MLB is on), or marijuana (a thing 85% of my high school was on). It's obvious the man gave it his all, if the man can hit, you must acquit!

Bull!

1) Rose bet on ball games. He bet on his own team's games going as far back as 1985 or 1986 when he was still playing.

2) Betting on your own team's games and throwing games are the only two offenses that get you placed on the permanentlyineligible list. Rose broke the first of those. (Betting on other games gets you a 1-year suspension.)

3) This rule is posted in every major league club house.

4) This rule has been in effect since the beginning of the National League in 1876.

5) This rule is not subject to the CBA.

6) All rules involving drug use of any kind are covered by the CBA. They are negotiated between MLB and the MLBPA. The penalty may be BS, but it's what the two entities agreed to.

7) Pete Rose lied about betting on ball games for fourteen years and only admitted it in a last-ditch attempt to become eligible for the HOF.

8) Pete Rose only admitted to it when he had a book to sell. Therefore, he only admitted to it when it became expedient to do so because he could profit financially from it.

9) If baseball does nothing about alleged steroid users, that is the fault of MLB because they looked the other way for a decade or more. It's going to be pretty hard to prove that McGwire or Sosa were on steroids when they were chasing after Maris's record.

10) However, the BBWAA, the group that does elects players to the HOF are free as individual voters to put 2 and 2 together. It is up to them right now to determine if these jerks go into the HOF. Knowing the intelligence of the writers in Chicago, I'd say Palmeiro goes in on the first ballot.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-03-2005, 01:33 PM
Rose belongs in the hall of fame along with all the other cheats, criminals, and demented racists who MLB has deemed perfectly acceptable for membership to their tidy little club.

Who is ****tin' who here?

:cool:

TornLabrum
08-03-2005, 01:57 PM
Rose belongs in the hall of fame along with all the other cheats, criminals, and demented racists who MLB has deemed perfectly acceptable for membership to their tidy little club.

Who is ****tin' who here?

:cool:

Yeah, yeah, and I remember when you believed Rose hadn't bet on Reds games either....

Oh, well, it's okay to have one eccentricity.:D: