PDA

View Full Version : OK I want your honest opinion here...


whitesoxfan1986
01-27-2007, 12:38 AM
This will probably end up in the ****house, but here it goes:Pete Rose and HOF. Should he be in? I didn't read his book or know if he admitted to betting on baseball as a player, but do you really think he fixed games to make money? He already had plenty of that. I personally think he should be in despite the gambling simply because when we discuss HOF, it should be simply about what is done on the baseball diamond, and not off it, unless that off the field incedent affected the outcome of a game.(Roids fit this category) I would change my mind if it was revealed that he fixed games however he could to win $, but I find it hard to believe that, based on what my dad told me about how he played the game. Granted, I never saw him play a game of baseball(he was before my time) so I may have no say on this. just want an opinion. This has probably been discussed before, and Mods, if you don't like this thread, then do as you wish. on a Baseball history note: did the no betting on baseball rule come about in lieu of the allegations of the 1919 Sox throwing the WS?

rdwj
01-27-2007, 01:03 AM
I was totally in his corner until his latest revelation - now I hope he never gets in. He's a liar and a cheat.

If he would have been honest from the beginning, I probably would think differently.

QCIASOXFAN
01-27-2007, 01:03 AM
Yes he should be in the HOF, and yes I have read his book "My Prison Without Bars." He never "fixed" games, but did he have much more of an advantage then the average gambler? Yes. Take it for what its worth but he said he never bet against his team. The only reason he isn't in th HOF is because he lied about it when the story broke. As well as for 15 years after that. Selig also hates him, as long as he is the Commish Pete will never get in.

jamokes
01-27-2007, 01:19 AM
Pete was a great player, All Star at 2b, 1b, OF. But he hurt the integrity of the game. If he gets in........then Joe Jackson gets in before Pete.

Nellie_Fox
01-27-2007, 01:20 AM
He never "fixed" games, but did he have much more of an advantage then the average gambler? Yes. Take it for what its worth but he said he never bet against his team. How do you know he never fixed games? You don't have to throw a game to be fixing your bets. You can simply not use your closer (or go very deep into your bullpen) in a game today because you might need him tomorrow in a game you have big action on. There are myriad ways that betting, even betting only for your team to win, can change your judgment in the way you are managing the game.

QCIASOXFAN
01-27-2007, 01:41 AM
How do you know he never fixed games? You don't have to throw a game to be fixing your bets. You can simply not use your closer (or go very deep into your bullpen) in a game today because you might need him tomorrow in a game you have big action on. There are myriad ways that betting, even betting only for your team to win, can change your judgment in the way you are managing the game.
He said he never bet against his squad, which leads me to believe he did everything in his power to win the game. Like I said thats just what he said in the book so take it for what its worth. I understand what you mean though, leaving pitchers out to long or putting in a ****ty pitcher in a big game situation. Read that last sentence twice and tell me who comes to mind.

ondafarm
01-27-2007, 01:43 AM
No professional baseball player can say that he doesn't know that any contact with professional gamblers is inappropriate. That Pete Rose didn't bet against his team is why he's never been given the full lifetime ban. Since HOF is also supposed to represent those who uphold the integrity of baseball, I think Rose fails that miserably and doesn't belong in the HOF.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-27-2007, 01:58 AM
No professional baseball player can say that he doesn't know that any contact with professional gamblers is inappropriate. That Pete Rose didn't bet against his team is why he's never been given the full lifetime ban. Since HOF is also supposed to represent those who uphold the integrity of baseball, I think Rose fails that miserably and doesn't belong in the HOF.

MLB should have let the BBWAA or the Veterans committee make that determination in the same manner McGwire, Sosa and others (who had a far greater negative impact on the game of baseball, IMO) will be judged.

They changed the rules to disallow a vote for Pete Rose. Joe Jackson was eligible for a vote (he had 2 IIRC) and was rejected by the writers and veterans. Pete Rose should have the same chance.

Then again a liar (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://espn.go.com/media/mlb/2005/0317/photo/a_selig_il.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story%3Fid%3D2014564&h=262&w=195&sz=12&hl=en&start=8&tbnid=vFBGiQnEVzunJM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=83&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbud%2Bselig%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den) is in charge of whether Pete Rose will be re-instituted so there goes MLB's moral argument.

MLB should have the right to allow or disallow Rose to manage or be hired by a MLB team in any capacity. MLB / Bud Selig should not be involved in whether the National Baseball Hall of Fame allows Pete Rose on the HOF ballot.

Let the voters decide and if he drops off the ballot after 15 years so be it.

Tony Perez - 2,732 H, .279 BA, .463 SLG, 1,272 R, 1,652 RBI
Pete Rose - 4,256 H, .303 BA, .409 SLG, 2,165 R, 1,314 RBI

One of these Reds belongs in the HOF and it isn't the first one listed.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 02:27 AM
Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame as long as he is not allowed to manage or be in the front office of a team.

Nellie_Fox
01-27-2007, 02:33 AM
Character is a requirement for admission to the HOF. Pete Rose lacks character big time.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 02:35 AM
Character is a requirement for admission to the HOF. Pete Rose lacks character big time.

I guess, but then you see people like Ty Cobb, I shouldn't say this but Kirby Puckett, Mickey Mantle and etc. So I don't know how true that is.

ILuvThatDuck
01-27-2007, 03:17 AM
Sorry Pete, you aint going in.

Nellie_Fox
01-27-2007, 03:41 AM
I guess, but then you see people like Ty Cobb, I shouldn't say this but Kirby Puckett, Mickey Mantle and etc. So I don't know how true that is.I expected this response. My reply is that just because there are some people who should not have been admitted based on character, we should not forever dismiss the character clause. Also, character was judged on different criteria in different generations, and that should not change how we currently judge character.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 05:24 AM
I expected this response. My reply is that just because there are some people who should not have been admitted based on character, we should not forever dismiss the character clause. Also, character was judged on different criteria in different generations, and that should not change how we currently judge character.

I respect your opinions and all being a wealth of knowledge and etc, but the Hall of Fame is a place where the greats in BASEBALL belong, not good samaritans unfortunately. But that's just my two cents being thrown in the pot.:rolleyes:

goofymsfan
01-27-2007, 06:55 AM
For me, this is a tough question. His stats are HoF caliber, however, his actions show he is not worthy. I think had he been truthful from the beginning about what he was doing rather than lying, he would be in. However, he chose to lie and show no remorse for what he had done. Had he apologized all those years ago, I don't think there would be this discussion going on now. I am a person that believes there should be consequences for a person's actions. Rose chose to lie and cheat; his consequence....no admittance to the HoF.

mshake10
01-27-2007, 10:12 AM
My problem is that the HOF added the "Pete Rose rule" AFTER he agreed to the lifetime ban. That's pretty low of the HOF.

I never liked the character clause. Thomas has been annoying in his career. Are sports writers going to bring up the character rule to keep him out of it?

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 10:16 AM
My problem is that the HOF added the "Pete Rose rule" AFTER he agreed to the lifetime ban. That's pretty low of the HOF.

I never liked the character clause. Thomas has been annoying in his career. Are sports writers going to bring up the character rule to keep him out of it?

Considering that most of these sportswriters have gone a 180 on Frank since the steroids issue, that won't happen.

soxfan13
01-27-2007, 10:24 AM
No he should not be in the HOF. He gambled and got caught. I am of the mind set that even if he had admitted it right away he still shouldnt be in. If they allowed him in they would have to open up the books and let a player like Shoeless Joe in.You cant let one player in without the other.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 10:26 AM
No he should not be in the HOF. He gambled and got caught. I am of the mind set that even if he had admitted it right away he still shouldnt be in. If they allowed him in they would have to open up the books and let a player like Shoeless Joe in.You cant let one player in without the other.

Remember, we want Shoeless Joe in the Hall of Fame

soxfan13
01-27-2007, 10:39 AM
Remember, we want Shoeless Joe in the Hall of Fame

Thats my point. Shoeless isnt in and he was actually cleared of wrong doing by the courts. If hes not in then Rose definately does not go in

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 10:48 AM
Thats my point. Shoeless isnt in and he was actually cleared of wrong doing by the courts. If hes not in then Rose definately does not go in

I know what you're saying but it would still be good for baseball if Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, and Dick Allen all got admitted into the Hall of Fame.

soxfan13
01-27-2007, 10:54 AM
I know what you're saying but it would still be good for baseball if Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, and Dick Allen all got admitted into the Hall of Fame.

Dick Allen is a completely different case and to be honest I dont know if he should be in. Shoeless Joe found not guilty of conspiring to throw the World Series should be in. Pete Rose found guilty of gambling and the other assorted things should not be in.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 11:08 AM
Dick Allen is a completely different case and to be honest I dont know if he should be in. Shoeless Joe found not guilty of conspiring to throw the World Series should be in. Pete Rose found guilty of gambling and the other assorted things should not be in.

First off all, I didn't mean to lump Dick Allen like that. Only just as ballplayers who should be in the hall.

But if you read my earlier posts on the issue you would see where I'm coming from.

WizardsofOzzie
01-27-2007, 11:49 AM
I guess, but then you see people like Ty Cobb, I shouldn't say this but Kirby Puckett, Mickey Mantle and etc. So I don't know how true that is.
Apparently Ty Cobb was quite the popular one

TY COBB
Crimes: Assault (too many to count), murder
It’s impossible to list all Ty’s acts of violence. But here are a few. 1907: Slapped a black groundskeeper; when the man’s wife protested, he grabbed her by the neck. 1908: Assaulted a black laborer; shoved a black chambermaid down the stairs. 1909: Slapped a black elevator operator for being “insolent.” When a night watchman (also black) broke it up, Cobb slashed him several times with a knife. Fined $100. 1912: Pistol-whipped a would-be mugger to death; pummeled a crippled fan. 1914: Threatened a butcher with a gun and pistol-whipped his black assistant. Babe Ruth said it best: “Ty Cobb is a prick.”

ondafarm
01-27-2007, 12:21 PM
To quote the Babe "Ty Cobb was a prick." Nobody can argue that. But he didn't gamble on baseball, especially in an era when nearly everybody did. There are plenty of stories of him betting on his own performance with sportswriters, but never on teams or against teams and never with professional gamblers.

There are bums in the HoF. There are drunks. There are womanizers. But there are no guys who bet with professional gamblers. It should stay that way.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 12:24 PM
To quote the Babe "Ty Cobb was a prick." Nobody can argue that. But he didn't gamble on baseball, especially in an era when nearly everybody did. There are plenty of stories of him betting on his own performance with sportswriters, but never on teams or against teams and never with professional gamblers.

There are bums in the HoF. There are drunks. There are womanizers. But there are no guys who bet with professional gamblers. It should stay that way.

So betting on your team is worse than committing racial hate crimes like Ty Cobb? Now I understand your reasoning!

I want Mags back
01-27-2007, 12:25 PM
Pete was a great player, All Star at 2b, 1b, OF. But he hurt the integrity of the game. If he gets in........then Joe Jackson gets in before Pete.

great point. Buck weaver too

WhiteSox5187
01-27-2007, 01:01 PM
great point. Buck weaver too
I don't know Weaver's stats, I'm not so sure if they were HOF quality. But what do I know?

Here's the major difference between Pete Rose and the 1919 Black Sox: Before the Black Sox scandal, there was no rule that said you couldn't bet on the game. It was just sorta known. There was a guy on the Reds and later the Giants, Hal Chase (I believe that was his name) who used to fix games all the time, and was never reprimanded. The Black Sox looked at him and probably said "Well, if they're not doing anything to HIM..."

By the time Pete Rose was playing, EVERYONE knew about the Black Sox and EVERYONE knew about the consequences of gambling on games. Pete Rose thought he was above the game, and for that he shouldn't be in. Nor should Bonds, Sosa or McGwire. They hurt the game just as much as Pete Rose did. Maybe even more so.

MUsoxfan
01-27-2007, 01:15 PM
I was Rose's #1 supporter until he admitted his gambling on baseball. Everyone knew he gambled on baseball, that was no secret....however, if he's gonna lie for 20 years he has to keep up the lie. If he would have kept his line of bull**** for the rest of his life, I'd still be in his corner

TDog
01-27-2007, 02:01 PM
It isn't a question of character. Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame because he betrayed baseball in a sense. It takes more than bad character to bring baseball disgrace. Kirby Puckett and Mickey Mantle certainly didn't disgrace the game. Ty Cobb didn't disgrace baseball in the way Rose or Joe Jackson did, although a Chicago jury found Jackson not guilty of conspiring to defraud a man who bet on the 1919 World Series. I have read some evidence that Cobb was even involved in fixing games, although it was not publicly known at the time. Of course, it wasn't until the aftermath of the 1919 World Series that there were actually rules prohibiting baseball players from betting on games, and Pete Rose knowinly violated those rules.

The fact remains that Cobb, despite faults that were known by sportswriters in his day, was the top vote-getter among the inaugural Hall of Fame class with 222 votes, twice as many as Cy Young and seven more than Babe Ruth. Joe Jackson, who was on the first ballot, received only two votes.

You don't put Benedict Arnold in a Hall of 18th century American generals, and you don't put Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-27-2007, 04:16 PM
I was Rose's #1 supporter until he admitted his gambling on baseball. Everyone knew he gambled on baseball, that was no secret....however, if he's gonna lie for 20 years he has to keep up the lie. If he would have kept his line of bull**** for the rest of his life, I'd still be in his corner

Bud Selig demanded a public apology and admission.

This Shoeless Joe Jackson business is nonsense. He was eligible (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1936.htm) for election until 1990 when they changed the rule to prevent Rose from entering the HOF. The BBWAA rejected him as did the Veterans Committee of decades.

Pete Rose should get a vote. Nobody is demanding he be elected to the HOF, they just want him eligible though I understand arguments against this.

I think the BBWAA would reject him at first though he may get in eventually. I don't think McGwire, Sosa or Palmeiro are getting in at least until they reach the Veterans Committee. I think Bonds will be voted in unless he is banned before he retires.

Then again, once Effa Manley was elected I consider the Baseball Hall of Fame to be complete.

DumpJerry
01-27-2007, 04:19 PM
Apparently Ty Cobb was quite the popular one
He wasn't included with the guys in the cornfield because they did not like him.

fogie
01-27-2007, 04:57 PM
I have seen Pete Rose play all his cereer, and is by for, the best player, I have ever seen, But he did wrong, and (NO) I don't think he belongs in the hall of fame. But if this is any consolation, they sure stuck it right his a**, where they didn't do it to a lot of others.

EastCoastSoxFan
01-29-2007, 12:49 PM
Somebody forgot to tell Pete Rose that confessing to being a liar doesn't necessarily improve one's credibility.

And his so-called "confession" was done in such a blatantly self-serving way that it is essentially meaningless -- hell, for all we know he confessed to something he didn't do just to improve his chances of getting into the Hall Of Fame and being reinstated into baseball.

If his "confession" had been a press conference or an unpaid interview rather than a book that he knew would generate millions of dollars and if he had waited until after his 15-year HOF eligibility window was up, then I might be more inclined to believe it.

But he unwaveringly denied it for 15 solid years -- that is, until the consensus of baseball opinion began to build up the idea that his only shot at reinstatement was a confession.

I don't believe a word Pete Rose says. And it's a damn shame because his baseball accomplishments speak volumes...

veeter
01-29-2007, 01:18 PM
Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.

vegyrex
01-29-2007, 01:25 PM
Rose should not be in the HOF.

russ99
01-29-2007, 02:11 PM
Despite the betting and lying, which is loathsome, he admitted to using uppers constantly as a player, which I'm sure tons of guys did back in the day.

This leads me to believe he cheated his way to the top, and some of his action as manager makes me think all along he was no different: a liar and a cheat.

I vote no, but Ty Cobb was a racist and a violent psychopath and Babe Ruth was a hardcore drinker and womanizer, and both of them are in the Hall - so any system like this where morals are taken into account is deeply flawed anyway.

I agree with Southside_Hitmen. He should get a vote and that vote (like McGwire) would be a resounding NO.

AuroraSoxFan
01-29-2007, 02:41 PM
I read his book. Honest opinion of the book is that it was a pity party act. Trying to build a base of people feeling sorry for him. I certainly don't. On top of what he did he flat lied about it for 15 years. Probably still didn't even tell the WHOLE story in his book. But to answer the question I say he does belong in the hall as a PLAYER. Same token I think he should be banned from holding any job at any level of MLB. That makes it a double edged sword. Can't let a guy into Cooperstown and then say he can't represent the game on any level. So I have to say NO all the way around.

D. TODD
01-29-2007, 02:54 PM
Gambling rules were painfully clear and ol' Peety chose to break them. I have way more leeway with those that used roids then for Pete who blatantly spit in the face of the most clearly defined no-no in baseball. Now if the roiders continue their use with the very clearly defined rules against amphetamines & roids they will get the same treatment. No to the hall for Rose, he knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences were for his actions.

D. TODD
01-29-2007, 02:56 PM
I read his book. Honest opinion of the book is that it was a pity party act. Trying to build a base of people feeling sorry for him. I certainly don't. On top of what he did he flat lied about it for 15 years. Probably still didn't even tell the WHOLE story in his book. But to answer the question I say he does belong in the hall as a PLAYER. Same token I think he should be banned from holding any job at any level of MLB. That makes it a double edged sword. Can't let a guy into Cooperstown and then say he can't represent the game on any level. So I have to say NO all the way around. Willie Mays was a HOFer who could not represent the game on any level while he was working for some casino in Vegas.

StillMissOzzie
01-29-2007, 04:29 PM
How do you know he never fixed games? You don't have to throw a game to be fixing your bets. You can simply not use your closer (or go very deep into your bullpen) in a game today because you might need him tomorrow in a game you have big action on. There are myriad ways that betting, even betting only for your team to win, can change your judgment in the way you are managing the game.

Excellent points, Nellie. I might also add that, while Rose may have only bet on his team to win, I believe that it spoke loud and clear to the people he placed his bets with, when he chose NOT to bet on his team. At some level, betting on some games and not others has to affect your strategy and tactics.

Gambling rules were painfully clear and ol' Peety chose to break them. I have way more leeway with those that used roids then for Pete who blatantly spit in the face of the most clearly defined no-no in baseball.

Exactly. Rose knew the rules. I understand that they are posted on the clubhouse walls of every MLB clubhouse, if not the minor leagues as well, as he chose to ignore them.

And finally, I am weary of the "If [player A] is in the HoF, then how can you leave out [player B]?" argument. Whatever negative qualities player A managed to get into the HoF with, that is no reason to compound the error by allowing player B in.

SMO
:gulp:

dwalteroo
01-29-2007, 04:38 PM
I was about to say, "Ban Pete Rose from the HoF, but let him rejoin baseball in some capacity." However, in the same breath, I was about to say we need to get Bonds out of baseball as soon as possible before he breaks Aaron's record, and that he should never be in the HoF.

So I don't know what you do. I feel bad for Rose because he was one of those guys who played his guts out day after day. But he broke the cardinal law of baseball and there's no going back from that.

I think it's good that the Reds are going to honor him. Maybe that's enough.

guillen4life13
01-29-2007, 06:44 PM
FWIW, and this may be flawed information that I'm drawing from, and this is the player of devil's advocate.

Baseball rules were not yet in place against steroids, as far as I know, when McGwire and Sosa were going for the record. So to say that they don't deserve into the HOF based on their steroid use alone is, to me, flawed logic, of course, if the rules were not yet in place.

Shoeless Joe should be in.
Pete Rose, given his credentials as a player, should be in. Sure, he's an a--hole and a liar, but there are too many of those in the Hall already to be saying that these are grounds for him not to get in. Remember, Pete probably isn't the only person to have gambled in his era. He's just the only one who got caught.

TDog
01-29-2007, 07:56 PM
FWIW, and this may be flawed information that I'm drawing from, and this is the player of devil's advocate.

Baseball rules were not yet in place against steroids, as far as I know, when McGwire and Sosa were going for the record. So to say that they don't deserve into the HOF based on their steroid use alone is, to me, flawed logic, of course, if the rules were not yet in place.

Shoeless Joe should be in.
Pete Rose, given his credentials as a player, should be in. Sure, he's an a--hole and a liar, but there are too many of those in the Hall already to be saying that these are grounds for him not to get in. Remember, Pete probably isn't the only person to have gambled in his era. He's just the only one who got caught.

The Pete Rose question isn't a question of character. Using steroids is a character issue. Most people around here believe it is a serious character issue. Whether it is enough of a character issue to keep suspected steroid users out of the Hall of Fame will be determined over the next half century.

Rose's case is different. He sold out the game in a way that transcends character. So did Joe Jackson, for that matter, although there wasn't a written rule banning Jackson from dealing with gamblers. The fact that Rose is remembered for "getting caught" as much as setting the record for hits (most people would have to look up the actual number) makes him at least as infamous as he is famous.

hose
01-29-2007, 08:14 PM
A baseball manager that gets convicted of gambling on baseball is on par with finding out an active teacher was convicted of child abuse and is on the sex offenders list.

No matter how much that teacher reforms themself they are gone for good.

soxinem1
01-29-2007, 09:18 PM
I watched Pete Rose play most of my childhood and early adult hood. I rooted for guys like him because he wasn't the best raw defender but made himself into a GG OF despite several position changes, didn't have the most range, didn't have decent power, but made himself into one whale of a ballplayer.

When he was named player-manager of the Reds, I was happy as a baseball fan because the Reds franchise was floundering and he helped get it back on its feet. I did not forget, however, his abandoning his hometown team for the money of Philadelphia.

I also remember Pete angrily and vehemently denying ever betting on baseball, both during the initial investigation of him and after he accepted the ban.

I recall all the second chances Steve Howe, Rod Scurry, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Alan Wiggins, and other got for being junkies, and none of them were half the player Rose was.

But drugs were not looked on as bad as gambling has been at that time, so making an exception to Rose would be like letting a murderer go free because he 'made a bad choice'. Why play with the rules and make provisions if they are clearly stated? Especially if you want them to be taken seriously?

So then he clumsily admits to it in his book, which was even more clumsily released when HOF voting was going on.

Baseball has stuck by this rule for sometime, and bending it, breaking it, or making exception to it to pay homage to a selfish, stupid, and self-serving idiot like him will do no justice to the game.

Pete is banned as a player, manager, scout, tutor, instructor, coach, Asst. GM, etc. and it should stand. No exceptions.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-29-2007, 11:41 PM
Gambling rules were painfully clear and ol' Peety chose to break them. I have way more leeway with those that used roids then for Pete who blatantly spit in the face of the most clearly defined no-no in baseball. Now if the roiders continue their use with the very clearly defined rules against amphetamines & roids they will get the same treatment. No to the hall for Rose, he knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences were for his actions.

The problem is Pete Rose is being judged by a liar. Bud Selig has lied on many occasions including at least twice in perjured testimony in front of Congress.

Bud Selig also borrowed millions of dollars from Carl Pohlad when both owned their respective teams which is also against the rules. To make matters worse, he agreed to sacrifice the Twins to contract as a quid pro quo to his banking friend.

Betting on baseball vs. collusion, cancellation of 1994, contraction and the entire steroid debacle which Selig did nothing about for over a decade.

Bud Selig has done more harm to baseball then Pete Rose ever did or could.

The Hall of Fame should have never changed the rule in 1990 barring Pete from the ballot and the BBWAA should have voted one way or the other on this matter and laid it to rest.

Nellie_Fox
01-30-2007, 01:09 AM
Baseball rules were not yet in place against steroids, as far as I know, when McGwire and Sosa were going for the record. So to say that they don't deserve into the HOF based on their steroid use alone is, to me, flawed logic, of course, if the rules were not yet in place.For about the 800th time, they were a federal crime. How is that less important than baseball's rules? Does MLB have to pass a rule specifically banning every crime?

Remember, Pete probably isn't the only person to have gambled in his era. He's just the only one who got caught.So what? How can baseball ban someone they don't know about? By your logic, no one should ever be punished for anything, because without a doubt there are others who haven't been caught for the same thing.