PDA

View Full Version : Rose admits to betting on Reds


kraut83
03-14-2007, 04:28 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

I could be wrong, but didn't he admit before that he bet on baseball but never on his own team?

Jerko
03-14-2007, 04:33 PM
At least he bet on them to win I guess. If he bet on them to lose and was tanking games on purpose, that's even worse. Not to say that it's ok either way.

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-14-2007, 04:37 PM
Forced confession as he falls on his sword, trying to get into the HoF.

If they ban Shoeless Joe Jackson for taking money for the '19 WS, they ban this ******* for ADMITTING to betting on games.

russ99
03-14-2007, 05:26 PM
Forced confession as he falls on his sword, trying to get into the HoF.

This is so bogus. :angry:

Maybe if Rose admitted privately to the powers that be of his wrongdoing and tried find some way to atone to allow future consideration would be one thing, but to publicly pander his way through the press with his "selective memory" to try and build up support through pity is quite another.

What a scumbag. I can't imagine he has any real fans after this statement. I hope they ban him for life now, if they haven't already.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-14-2007, 05:27 PM
http://espn.go.com/poll/images/poll43687_0.gif

The polls have been consistent over the years and baseball fans have supported reinstatement in most of the polls (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=541) I have seen (usually 1/3 are against).

Pete Rose deserves to be eligible for the vote (he would have been if Fay Vincent hadn't changed the rules of eligibility) and let the voters decide whether or not he should be in the HOF.

cbotnyse
03-14-2007, 06:03 PM
If you think about it logically, betting on your team to win seems just fine. To me, he is just risking not only his job (meaning if they always lose, he would be fired) but also risking his own money.

But who knows what he was thinking, he clearly had a problem.

Daver
03-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Pete Rose deserves to be eligible for the vote (he would have been if Fay Vincent hadn't changed the rules of eligibility) and let the voters decide whether or not he should be in the HOF.

Then they better do the same for Joe Jackson.

AZChiSoxFan
03-14-2007, 06:29 PM
If you think about it logically, betting on your team to win seems just fine. To me, he is just risking not only his job (meaning if they always lose, he would be fired) but also risking his own money.



Sorry but that's not the game is played.

If I'm a bookie and Rose calls me on Monday night to bet on the Reds, then he calls me on Tue night to bet on the Reds, but then on Wed night he doesn't call......well then I clearly know which way to go on the Reds game on Wed night.

The guy is a lying, cheating scumbag and I'm glad he's not going to the Hall anytime soon.

ilsox7
03-14-2007, 06:41 PM
Sorry but that's not the game is played.

If I'm a bookie and Rose calls me on Monday night to bet on the Reds, then he calls me on Tue night to bet on the Reds, but then on Wed night he doesn't call......well then I clearly know which way to go on the Reds game on Wed night.

The guy is a lying, cheating scumbag and I'm glad he's not going to the Hall anytime soon.

Even more than that, it compromises the way he may use relievers, pinch hitters, etc. If he bets on tonight's game, he may let a reliever go 2 innings to win thus sacrificing that reliever's availability for the next couple of days.

cbotnyse
03-14-2007, 06:50 PM
Even more than that, it compromises the way he may use relievers, pinch hitters, etc. If he bets on tonight's game, he may let a reliever go 2 innings to win thus sacrificing that reliever's availability for the next couple of days.

Sorry but that's not the game is played.

If I'm a bookie and Rose calls me on Monday night to bet on the Reds, then he calls me on Tue night to bet on the Reds, but then on Wed night he doesn't call......well then I clearly know which way to go on the Reds game on Wed night.

The guy is a lying, cheating scumbag and I'm glad he's not going to the Hall anytime soon.yes good points. I'm not saying it was right at all, but in theory betting on your team to win makes sense to me. But like I said who knows what he did. Gamblers always look for an edge. And I'm sure if Rose knew he was playing a better team, it wouldnt shock me if he bet against them. Betting at all on your team is a simply dumbass thing to do.

Milw
03-14-2007, 06:51 PM
At least he bet on them to win I guess. If he bet on them to lose and was tanking games on purpose, that's even worse. Not to say that it's ok either way.
He's consistently lied all the way through this. What makes you think he won't come out next year and admit to betting on the Reds to lose, too?

soxinem1
03-14-2007, 07:22 PM
The guy is a lying, cheating scumbag and I'm glad he's not going to the Hall anytime soon.

I agree, I wish he would just go away.

I could care less what some polls say on this issue, the rule is the rule. And when you were as arrogant (and extreme liar) as he was about this, it makes it no better.

No Pete in the HOF, ever. Ever, ever, ever!!!!!

Soxfanspcu11
03-14-2007, 09:21 PM
I guess that I am also in the minority of people who do not want to see this scumbag reinstated.

The betting issue aside, he is just a jerk.

The one thing that always comes to my mind when I think about Pete Rose is how he bowled over that catcher during an All-Star game and essentially ended the guy's career.

The victim's name escapes me at the moment, but that one event alone really explains just how much of a piece of crap he is.

I don't want to here the BS that "oh, that's just him playing hard". "That's his passion!" BULL****!!!

What part of "All-Star Game" is not understood here???:?:

It's an exhibition game for the fans, and back then it meant nothing at all!!

So, he pulls this stunt during a meaningless game that ends a fellow players career?!?! What a classy dude!:rolleyes:

I hope that he NEVER gets reinstated, NEVER makes the hall, and is NEVER allowed back in the game in ANY fashion.

I hope he has to sit there and be miserable about it for the rest of his miserable life as well.

beckett21
03-14-2007, 09:24 PM
I guess that I am also in the minority of people who do not want to see this scumbag reinstated.

The betting issue aside, he is just a jerk.

The one thing that always comes to my mind when I think about Pete Rose is how he bowled over that catcher during an All-Star game and essentially ended the guy's career.

The victim's name escapes me at the moment, but that one event alone really explains just how much of a piece of crap he is.

I don't want to here the BS that "oh, that's just him playing hard". "That's his passion!" BULL****!!!

What part of "All-Star Game" is not understood here???:?:

It's an exhibition game for the fans, and back then it meant nothing at all!!

So, he pulls this stunt during a meaningless game that ends a fellow players career?!?! What a classy dude!:rolleyes:

I hope that he NEVER gets reinstated, NEVER makes the hall, and is NEVER allowed back in the game in ANY fashion.

I hope he has to sit there and be miserable about it for the rest of his miserable life as well.

Ray Fosse was the catcher he annihilated.

Pete Rose was one of the greatest players of all time. He also bet on baseball and his team. For that reason, he does not EVER belong in the Hall of Fame, nor does he even merit consideration in my book. Period.

soxfan13
03-14-2007, 09:39 PM
I guess that I am also in the minority of people who do not want to see this scumbag reinstated.

The betting issue aside, he is just a jerk.

The one thing that always comes to my mind when I think about Pete Rose is how he bowled over that catcher during an All-Star game and essentially ended the guy's career.

The victim's name escapes me at the moment, but that one event alone really explains just how much of a piece of crap he is.

I don't want to here the BS that "oh, that's just him playing hard". "That's his passion!" BULL****!!!

What part of "All-Star Game" is not understood here???:?:

It's an exhibition game for the fans, and back then it meant nothing at all!!

So, he pulls this stunt during a meaningless game that ends a fellow players career?!?! What a classy dude!:rolleyes:

I hope that he NEVER gets reinstated, NEVER makes the hall, and is NEVER allowed back in the game in ANY fashion.

I hope he has to sit there and be miserable about it for the rest of his miserable life as well.

I have no problem with that play in the All-Star game but I do agree with you that he is a jerk and ******* and whatever else you want to call him and he doesnt belong in the hall.

Johnny Mostil
03-14-2007, 10:34 PM
Sorry but that's not the game is played.

If I'm a bookie and Rose calls me on Monday night to bet on the Reds, then he calls me on Tue night to bet on the Reds, but then on Wed night he doesn't call......well then I clearly know which way to go on the Reds game on Wed night.

The guy is a lying, cheating scumbag and I'm glad he's not going to the Hall anytime soon.

Very first paragraph in cited story:


Pete Rose revealed Wednesday that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.


Now I don't know why he'd bet on the Reds "every night," but, assuming he's telling the truth on this (something I may not do), then I'm guessing he called his bookie on Wednesday as well as Monday and Tuesday (and Thursday and Friday and . . .) . . .

Johnny Mostil
03-14-2007, 10:36 PM
Then they better do the same for Joe Jackson.

I'm guessing they would. Cases are explained (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/faq.htm#jackson) in similar ways (and, I assume, would be resolved in similar ways).

Oblong
03-14-2007, 10:54 PM
Pete Rose deserves to be eligible for the vote (he would have been if Fay Vincent hadn't changed the rules of eligibility) and let the voters decide whether or not he should be in the HOF.


Vincent didn't change it. The HOF did. The HOF is a separate entity from MLB and MLB has no control over what their rules are. I'm sure MLB and Vincent didn't mind but it wasn't their decision to make.

Count me among those who thinks he should never be reinstated and that it's silly to consider having someone in a HOF for an institution they are barred from. It'd be like honoring a cop who was fired for taking bribes.

And Pete gets double whammys for lying so feverishly about this for 15 years. He called people names, made fun of Vincent's disability, and questioned the credibility of John Dowd and Giamatti.

My fear is that he'll get cancer, MS, or Lou Gehrig's disease and come out publicly when he's very frail and near death and they'll feel sorry for him and put him in with a special ballot or something.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-14-2007, 11:05 PM
He's consistently lied all the way through this. What makes you think he won't come out next year and admit to betting on the Reds to lose, too?

Everything he admitted to in the book was disclosed in the Dowd Report (http://www.dowdreport.com/), a private investigation of Pete Rose. There was nothing in the Dowd Report that stated Pete Rose ever bet against the Cincinnati Reds. He was a compulsive gambler. He has admitted his mistakes and said he is wrong. He has served a 18 year ban to date and MLB changed the rules to make his punishment more harsh.

The Dowd investigation was conducted with the full participation of MLB and the Reds, unlike the farce Selig and former Senator Mitchell are conducting into the steroid scandal to which not a single player or other witness is required to testify if it is not in their interest.

Bud Selig has lied far more and has done far more damage to MLB than Pete Rose ever did. Bud Selig lied to congress about the steroid plan (saying there were public disclosures of positive tests which wasn't the case until Congress called him out on his lie and they had to scramble to change the plan). Bud Selig said he never even heard of the word steroid until a few years ago which is another lie as steroid use in baseball has been reported since 1988.

Bud Selig lied to congress about the financial status of baseball, claiming baseball lost $500 million per year in the late 1990s. Bud Selig borrowed millions of dollars from Carl Pohlad, against baseball rules. As a quid pro quo, he agreed to contract the Twins for an over $200 million payday for Pohlad.

Bud Selig and Reinsdorf were the two hardliners that caused the cancellation of 1994. Bud Selig did nothing about the steroid scandal until threatened by Congress. Despite all of this damage, Bud Selig is not only still allowed to manage MLB but also can stand judgment on whether Pete Rose is in baseball or not. Pete Rose gambling is a minor footnote in the game of baseball compared to a cancelled season and the two decade long steroid scandal, mostly on Bud Selig's watch.

Dozens of junkies have gotten up to several chances to return to the game, four more than the "lifetime" ban after the third offense. MLB has allowed Pete Rose to set up an 11 month exhibit inside the Cincinnati Reds stadium this season and I plan on going there to see it. MLB will reverse this ban within a few years and he will be allowed on the ballot. Whether he gets 75% is up to the writers (or Veterans Committee depending on which ballot he would go on).

Joe Jackson was never banned on the ballot until Fay Vincent wrote the Pete Rose Rule in 1989 which banned players on MLB's ineligible list from being on the ballot. Joe Jackson received a handful of votes on a couple of ballots and then was not considered a serious candidate after his retirement. He was never banned from the BBWAA or Veterans Committee ballot until 1989. He was rejected over the decades because he did not play long enough to warrant consideration, IMO. I don't think anyone views the circumstances leading to his shortened career in the same light as other players whose careers were shortened due to military service (several players during WWII and / or Korea), career / life ending disease (Gehrig or Puckett) or premature death (Clemente).

I know these views may be unpopular on this board, and I understand were the objectors are coming from. My point is MLB has given everyone multiple chances for far worse actions demaging the game of basbeall yet Pete Rose is the only person who cannot get even a second chance. The HOF is a farse at this point but it is important to Pete Rose and all I am saying is allow him on the ballot and whether he get the votes or not, he had his shot. Allowing him to manage again is a seperate issue and I would need to see more evidence and what an agreement would be to allow Pete to do that. I would think he would need to give up all gambling, including Horse Racing and casino gambling as he is either over gambling or he isn't. This may make Pittsburgh Penguins fans mad but so be it.


Oblong - Fay Vincent was indeed instrumental in changing the procedures for the HOF. MLB and the HOF are partners. While MLB does not own the HOF, they work together on policy and management of the HOF.

gobears1987
03-14-2007, 11:58 PM
Betting on your team to win is still bad. It may make you burn your whole pen in an otherwise meaningless game. That could then cost you most of the games the rest of the week.

QCIASOXFAN
03-15-2007, 12:20 AM
Yes this is old news, he said all of this in "My Prison Without Bars" which was released about 2 years ago. He never bet on his team to lose. I picked up the book off EBAY about a year ago for $4.00 W/S.:tongue:

Soxfanspcu11
03-15-2007, 12:42 AM
Ray Fosse was the catcher he annihilated.

Pete Rose was one of the greatest players of all time. He also bet on baseball and his team. For that reason, he does not EVER belong in the Hall of Fame, nor does he even merit consideration in my book. Period.

I agree with everything that you have said here. Also, thanks for refreshing my memory on the catcher's name. IMHO, what he did to Ray Fosse is just another example of why his ban should remain intact. That play alone would most certainly not warrant a lifetime ban, but when you add that play to the laundry list of crap that he has done, it is more of an extension and a prime example as to why he should remain banned.

I'm well aware that it was a completely legal play, but to me, a person has to read between the lines. Sure it was legal, but given the circumstances, it was just simply uncalled for. Sure, you play to win, and of course the allstar game is no different. But I believe that a little bit of restraint would/should have been exercised by Rose in this particular incident. Was it really necessary to bowl over the catcher on this play? Of course not. Was it necessary for Rose to stand over Fosse after the play and taunt him like he was Muhammad Ali? I mean, from what I have seen, Rose didn't even pretend to care that he had just ruined a fellow players career.

Like I said originally, that event really just speaks to his character, or lack there-of. Of course there is no doubt about his talents, everyone knows that he was one of the greats. But I just can not feel sorry for a guy who continually and constantly shows his true colors.

It really is enjoyable for me to see him suffer about his continued exclusion. Without a doubt, his statistics warrant him a spot in the hall, but the fact that he was/is such an ******* makes me happy to see him not there.

HotelWhiteSox
03-15-2007, 01:23 AM
I don't think 'coming clean' was a good idea. You already lied about it altogether, I doubt there is much doubt in people's mind that he could be lieing on not betting against the Reds. Don't have the willpower to not bet every night, so what about when things are going a little rough?

I would still like him in the hall though.

voodoochile
03-15-2007, 01:40 AM
I've stated my position before. I'll state it once again.

Keep the games clean.

That means if you gamble on the sport you play, you gone. It's that simple. Gambling on games you coach or play in is doubly bad, I don't care if you be the team to win every single time.

Good Bye, Pete. Hope this is the last time we ever have to discuss your sorry ass and the HOF in the same sentence.

Nellie_Fox
03-15-2007, 02:08 AM
How many different versions of this is Pete going to tell? And which one is the truth?

No way do I believe that he bet on the Reds to win every night. He was the manager; would he bet on the team to win when he knew that his starting pitcher for the night was having a little physical problem? When he knew he was going to have to scratch his #3 hitter because he had the flu? Of course not.

Maybe he didn't bet against them those nights, but as others have said earlier, it surely influenced his decision making knowing that he had a big bet for the next night. Why burn up your bullpen tonight, on a night when you don't have a bet down, when you have big money down for tomorrow night and might need them?

There is no way that his gambling didn't influence his decision making. What you think of Selig is irrelevant in deciding whether Rose should be HOF eligible. Great analogy by Oblong; we caught a cop taking a bribe, but he led the department in arrests that year, so even though we fired him, we're making him "officer of the year."

ewokpelts
03-15-2007, 02:21 AM
Everything he admitted to in the book was disclosed in the Dowd Report (http://www.dowdreport.com/), a private investigation of Pete Rose. There was nothing in the Dowd Report that stated Pete Rose ever bet against the Cincinnati Reds. He was a compulsive gambler. He has admitted his mistakes and said he is wrong. He has served a 18 year ban to date and MLB changed the rules to make his punishment more harsh.

The Dowd investigation was conducted with the full participation of MLB and the Reds, unlike the farce Selig and former Senator Mitchell are conducting into the steroid scandal to which not a single player or other witness is required to testify if it is not in their interest.

Bud Selig has lied far more and has done far more damage to MLB than Pete Rose ever did. Bud Selig lied to congress about the steroid plan (saying there were public disclosures of positive tests which wasn't the case until Congress called him out on his lie and they had to scramble to change the plan). Bud Selig said he never even heard of the word steroid until a few years ago which is another lie as steroid use in baseball has been reported since 1988.

Bud Selig lied to congress about the financial status of baseball, claiming baseball lost $500 million per year in the late 1990s. Bud Selig borrowed millions of dollars from Carl Pohlad, against baseball rules. As a quid pro quo, he agreed to contract the Twins for an over $200 million payday for Pohlad.

Bud Selig and Reinsdorf were the two hardliners that caused the cancellation of 1994. Bud Selig did nothing about the steroid scandal until threatened by Congress. Despite all of this damage, Bud Selig is not only still allowed to manage MLB but also can stand judgment on whether Pete Rose is in baseball or not. Pete Rose gambling is a minor footnote in the game of baseball compared to a cancelled season and the two decade long steroid scandal, mostly on Bud Selig's watch.

Dozens of junkies have gotten up to several chances to return to the game, four more than the "lifetime" ban after the third offense. MLB has allowed Pete Rose to set up an 11 month exhibit inside the Cincinnati Reds stadium this season and I plan on going there to see it. MLB will reverse this ban within a few years and he will be allowed on the ballot. Whether he gets 75% is up to the writers (or Veterans Committee depending on which ballot he would go on).

Joe Jackson was never banned on the ballot until Fay Vincent wrote the Pete Rose Rule in 1989 which banned players on MLB's ineligible list from being on the ballot. Joe Jackson received a handful of votes on a couple of ballots and then was not considered a serious candidate after his retirement. He was never banned from the BBWAA or Veterans Committee ballot until 1989. He was rejected over the decades because he did not play long enough to warrant consideration, IMO. I don't think anyone views the circumstances leading to his shortened career in the same light as other players whose careers were shortened due to military service (several players during WWII and / or Korea), career / life ending disease (Gehrig or Puckett) or premature death (Clemente).

I know these views may be unpopular on this board, and I understand were the objectors are coming from. My point is MLB has given everyone multiple chances for far worse actions demaging the game of basbeall yet Pete Rose is the only person who cannot get even a second chance. The HOF is a farse at this point but it is important to Pete Rose and all I am saying is allow him on the ballot and whether he get the votes or not, he had his shot. Allowing him to manage again is a seperate issue and I would need to see more evidence and what an agreement would be to allow Pete to do that. I would think he would need to give up all gambling, including Horse Racing and casino gambling as he is either over gambling or he isn't. This may make Pittsburgh Penguins fans mad but so be it.


Oblong - Fay Vincent was indeed instrumental in changing the procedures for the HOF. MLB and the HOF are partners. While MLB does not own the HOF, they work together on policy and management of the HOF.selig also has had labor peace forover 12 years now
he's done some good, but his blunders are pretty big
at the end of the day, teh comissioner was always a tool of the owners...selig made sure the commisioner was a POWERFUL TOOL.

WhiteSox5187
03-15-2007, 03:04 AM
Pete Rose was a magnificent ballplayer and is a horrible human being. Simple as that. It's a perfectly simple rule: Do not bet on baseball. And Rose broke it. No one, NO ONE is bigger than the game, and Pete Rose thought he was and is now paying the price of that.

People make the comparison between Pete Rose and Joe Jackson a lot, but that's not very fair because prior to the 1919 Black Sox scandal, there was no rule that forbade gambling on games. It was certainly known that you shouldn't do that, but it was done all the time. In fact one guy, a first basemen for the Reds and the Giants, did it all the time and never got punished for it. So the thinking is that the Black Sox saw that and figured "Well, surely they won't punish us?" The Black Sox set the precendent, but there was a very CLEAR precendent for Pete Rose. He knew the consequences of his actions. Didn't stop him. Too bad for both sides.

IlliniSox4Life
03-15-2007, 04:14 AM
The one thing that always comes to my mind when I think about Pete Rose is how he bowled over that catcher during an All-Star game and essentially ended the guy's career.
Fosse played 9 more years and won 2 World Series with the As after that play. He hardly ended his career. Fosse didn't hit for as much power as he did before the collision, and it may have changed how good he could have been, but I think when he played 9 more years, you can harldy say that Rose "essentially ended the guy's career.


What part of "All-Star Game" is not understood here???:?:

It's an exhibition game for the fans, and back then it meant nothing at all!!

So, he pulls this stunt during a meaningless game that ends a fellow players career?!?! What a classy dude!:rolleyes:

I hope that he NEVER gets reinstated, NEVER makes the hall, and is NEVER allowed back in the game in ANY fashion.

I hope he has to sit there and be miserable about it for the rest of his miserable life as well.


I'm well aware that it was a completely legal play, but to me, a person has to read between the lines. Sure it was legal, but given the circumstances, it was just simply uncalled for. Sure, you play to win, and of course the allstar game is no different. But I believe that a little bit of restraint would/should have been exercised by Rose in this particular incident. Was it really necessary to bowl over the catcher on this play? Of course not. Was it necessary for Rose to stand over Fosse after the play and taunt him like he was Muhammad Ali? I mean, from what I have seen, Rose didn't even pretend to care that he had just ruined a fellow players career.

It's a game held by Major League Baseball. If they don't want the game to be played at 100%, they shouldn't hold the game. They obviously want people to put everything into it, otherwise they wouldn't have made home field advantage in the Series contingent on it.


It really is enjoyable for me to see him suffer about his continued exclusion. Without a doubt, his statistics warrant him a spot in the hall, but the fact that he was/is such an ******* makes me happy to see him not there.
This guy isn't a murderer. He isn't a pedophile and he isn't a rapist. Why you take so much pleasure in seeing him suffer really puzzles me.

IndianWhiteSox
03-15-2007, 07:15 AM
Everything he admitted to in the book was disclosed in the Dowd Report (http://www.dowdreport.com/), a private investigation of Pete Rose. There was nothing in the Dowd Report that stated Pete Rose ever bet against the Cincinnati Reds. He was a compulsive gambler. He has admitted his mistakes and said he is wrong. He has served a 18 year ban to date and MLB changed the rules to make his punishment more harsh.

The Dowd investigation was conducted with the full participation of MLB and the Reds, unlike the farce Selig and former Senator Mitchell are conducting into the steroid scandal to which not a single player or other witness is required to testify if it is not in their interest.

Bud Selig has lied far more and has done far more damage to MLB than Pete Rose ever did. Bud Selig lied to congress about the steroid plan (saying there were public disclosures of positive tests which wasn't the case until Congress called him out on his lie and they had to scramble to change the plan). Bud Selig said he never even heard of the word steroid until a few years ago which is another lie as steroid use in baseball has been reported since 1988.

Bud Selig lied to congress about the financial status of baseball, claiming baseball lost $500 million per year in the late 1990s. Bud Selig borrowed millions of dollars from Carl Pohlad, against baseball rules. As a quid pro quo, he agreed to contract the Twins for an over $200 million payday for Pohlad.

Bud Selig and Reinsdorf were the two hardliners that caused the cancellation of 1994. Bud Selig did nothing about the steroid scandal until threatened by Congress. Despite all of this damage, Bud Selig is not only still allowed to manage MLB but also can stand judgment on whether Pete Rose is in baseball or not. Pete Rose gambling is a minor footnote in the game of baseball compared to a cancelled season and the two decade long steroid scandal, mostly on Bud Selig's watch.

Dozens of junkies have gotten up to several chances to return to the game, four more than the "lifetime" ban after the third offense. MLB has allowed Pete Rose to set up an 11 month exhibit inside the Cincinnati Reds stadium this season and I plan on going there to see it. MLB will reverse this ban within a few years and he will be allowed on the ballot. Whether he gets 75% is up to the writers (or Veterans Committee depending on which ballot he would go on).

Joe Jackson was never banned on the ballot until Fay Vincent wrote the Pete Rose Rule in 1989 which banned players on MLB's ineligible list from being on the ballot. Joe Jackson received a handful of votes on a couple of ballots and then was not considered a serious candidate after his retirement. He was never banned from the BBWAA or Veterans Committee ballot until 1989. He was rejected over the decades because he did not play long enough to warrant consideration, IMO. I don't think anyone views the circumstances leading to his shortened career in the same light as other players whose careers were shortened due to military service (several players during WWII and / or Korea), career / life ending disease (Gehrig or Puckett) or premature death (Clemente).

I know these views may be unpopular on this board, and I understand were the objectors are coming from. My point is MLB has given everyone multiple chances for far worse actions demaging the game of basbeall yet Pete Rose is the only person who cannot get even a second chance. The HOF is a farse at this point but it is important to Pete Rose and all I am saying is allow him on the ballot and whether he get the votes or not, he had his shot. Allowing him to manage again is a seperate issue and I would need to see more evidence and what an agreement would be to allow Pete to do that. I would think he would need to give up all gambling, including Horse Racing and casino gambling as he is either over gambling or he isn't. This may make Pittsburgh Penguins fans mad but so be it.


Oblong - Fay Vincent was indeed instrumental in changing the procedures for the HOF. MLB and the HOF are partners. While MLB does not own the HOF, they work together on policy and management of the HOF.

Exactly, Selig has done far worse than Rose; however if Jackson isn't in then Rose shouldn't be either. Although, if everyone is saying that Rose disgraced the game, then why haven't all the roiders been kicked out, considering that people like McAndro, Shammy, Raffy, and Barroid have all done far worse damage to the game than what Rose could even attempt to do.

soxinem1
03-15-2007, 07:47 AM
Exactly, Selig has done far worse than Rose; however if Jackson isn't in then Rose shouldn't be either. Although, if everyone is saying that Rose disgraced the game, then why haven't all the roiders been kicked out, considering that people like McAndro, Shammy, Raffy, and Barroid have all done far worse damage to the game than what Rose could even attempt to do.

I'm no big fan of Bud, but the results of his tenure do not lie. Baseball has recovered from the 1994-95 strike very nicely, and he had a lot to do with it.

But one thing Bud did nothing about was the steriods. The homerun helped bring fans back to the game. The supplients were not banned back then, and quite frankly, well-pitched games do not put fans in the seats, 450 foot bombs to the OF stands do. So as much as I think of them as cheaters, making an ex post facto law against something that was not enforceable is not only unfair, but against the law too. Other than Palmeiro, nothing can be done with the others.

How would you like it if you were given a speeding ticket because the speed limit was lowered on a road to 30 MPH this week that was 45 MPH the week before? And because you were going 40 MPH previously, you are now guilty?

Not fair, right?

Drugs have been a problem as well. One might argue about Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, and Paul Molitor getting chances of redemption after getting busted (on numerous occasions for some of them). But the rules are not as strict as they are for gambling, and MLB has been consistent with the gambling punishments, and that is how it should stay.

But the real discussion here is Rose, and the issue is gambling. The sign is in every major league clubhouse, and it applies to EVERY player, be him a scrub or an All-Star. Plus, his denials and smears against his accusers are now all admitted to by him.

No exceptions, no BS. Pete deserves what he's getting, and that is permanent banishment.

IndianWhiteSox
03-15-2007, 07:51 AM
I'm no big fan of Bud, but the results of his tenure do not lie. Baseball has recovered from the 1994-95 strike very nicely, and he had a lot to do with it.

But one thing Bud did nothing about was the steriods. The homerun helped bring fans back to the game. The supplients were not banned back then, and quite frankly, well-pitched games do not put fans in the seats, 450 foot bombs to the OF stands do. So as much as I think of them as cheaters, making an ex post facto law against something that was not enforceable is not only unfair, but against the law too. Other than Palmeiro, nothing can be done with the others.

How would you like it if you were given a speeding ticket because the speed limit was lowered on a road to 30 MPH this week that was 45 MPH the week before? And because you were going 40 MPH previously, you are now guilty?

Not fair, right?

Drugs have been a problem as well. One might argue about Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, and Paul Molitor getting chances of redemption after getting busted (on numerous occasions for some of them). But the rules are not as strict as they are for gambling, and MLB has been consistent with the gambling punishments, and that is how it should stay.

But the real discussion here is Rose, and the issue is gambling. The sign is in every major league clubhouse, and it applies to EVERY player, be him a scrub or an All-Star. Plus, his denials and smears against his accusers are now all admitted to by him.

No exceptions, no BS. Pete deserves what he's getting, and that is permanent banishment.

Listen, I think Rose is an obnoxious liar and attention whore who should go hiding somewhere. However, all I'm saying is why can't baseball just be this strict for breaking other rules?

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-15-2007, 07:55 AM
Listen, I think Rose is an obnoxious liar and attention whore who should go hiding somewhere. However, all I'm saying is why can't baseball just be this strict for breaking other rules?

We'd need a thread larger than the Cubune headlines for that.

But, as Sox fans, I think this is much more personal; baseball had no problem locking out a great player because of a World Series scandal. In the current era, a notable great player FREELY admits to betting on baseball (to me, win or lose is completely immaterial). Joe Jackson never once had the luxury of an ESPN/Internet to "plead his case", like Rose is doing now.

If Joe is not allowed in, Rose should never be allowed in either. Both involved gambling; if one gets in, so does the other.

soxfanatlanta
03-15-2007, 09:10 AM
No doubt that he was a great player, but rules are rules. Unless MLB changes them, he need to just shut the hell up. What really annoyed me from that article was his quote:

I'm the best ambassador baseball has.

Are you kidding me? What drug-induced hallucination caused him to believe this? The best ambassador? Does that knucklehead even know what that word means?

sheesh.

soxfan13
03-15-2007, 09:18 AM
Listen, I think Rose is an obnoxious liar and attention whore who should go hiding somewhere. However, all I'm saying is why can't baseball just be this strict for breaking other rules?

Without getting in to the steroid arguement again, steroids were not against "baseball" rules. They are now!!!!

ewokpelts
03-15-2007, 10:55 AM
It's a game held by Major League Baseball. If they don't want the game to be played at 100%, they shouldn't hold the game. They obviously want people to put everything into it, otherwise they wouldn't have made home field advantage in the Series contingent on it.

Not in 1971.

ewokpelts
03-15-2007, 11:01 AM
We'd need a thread larger than the Cubune headlines for that.

But, as Sox fans, I think this is much more personal; baseball had no problem locking out a great player because of a World Series scandal. In the current era, a notable great player FREELY admits to betting on baseball (to me, win or lose is completely immaterial). Joe Jackson never once had the luxury of an ESPN/Internet to "plead his case", like Rose is doing now.

If Joe is not allowed in, Rose should never be allowed in either. Both involved gambling; if one gets in, so does the other.what happened to joe jackson has no effect on me, aside from sox/cub fan arguments.
he took money from gamblers to throw the world series. he got caught and paid the price.

i'm a little tired of all the "get joe in" crap. what are we, the cubs?
so he's banned...boo fricken hoo
he's in the same boat as chick gandhil and pete rose.

as long as gambling in baseball is prohibited, joe and pete will be banned.

Gene

p.s. same goes for buck weaver.

soxfan13
03-15-2007, 11:09 AM
what happened to joe jackson has no effect on me, aside from sox/cub fan arguments.
he took money from gamblers to throw the world series. he got caught and paid the price.

i'm a little tired of all the "get joe in" crap. what are we, the cubs?
so he's banned...boo fricken hoo
he's in the same boat as chick gandhil and pete rose.

as long as gambling in baseball is prohibited, joe and pete will be banned.

Gene

p.s. same goes for buck weaver.

Agreed but I dont think its people here campaigning for Jackson to get in, its more them saying if Rose is reinstated for the vote then Jackson should be also.

Frater Perdurabo
03-15-2007, 11:14 AM
As long as he wasn't betting on games while he was a player, his performance as a player merits inclusion.

But, he deserves to be punished for betting on baseball.

So, don't allow him the possibility of entry while he is alive. Once he has passed on, then make him eligible and let the HOf voters decide.

Weasely compromise? Sure. Fire away. I don't care.

Oh, and Shoeless Joe belongs in the Hall.

ewokpelts
03-15-2007, 11:22 AM
Agreed but I dont think its people here campaigning for Jackson to get in, its more them saying if Rose is reinstated for the vote then Jackson should be also.well, there is a pretty decent sized movement for buck weaver. just because you're played by john cusack in a movie dosent let you off the hook.

soxinem1
03-15-2007, 11:23 AM
Listen, I think Rose is an obnoxious liar and attention whore who should go hiding somewhere. However, all I'm saying is why can't baseball just be this strict for breaking other rules?

There are only a few things one can do to get banned from baseball. Repeated drug use, like cocaine additions, can, but in all honesty, it's not looked upon as cheating like gambling or juicing is. Instances like Paul Molitor, Steve Howe, and Alan Wiggins never branded them as cheaters, but as addicts. Most bans were overturned eventually.

You have to understand the situation back in the day when gambling was banned. The opportunity to make money for players was not there, and the influence of gambling in all professional sports was tremendous. Sure, there is gambling today, but most baseball historians note that at one time gamblers were more powerful that GM's or even most owners.

The 1919 White Sox are the most celebrated fall guy(s) that over-shadow numerous gambling incidents in MLB, but there have been many others banned for the same thing.

The gambling rule have never been eased up on, and doing it to accommodate a selfish jerk like Pete Rose would definitely disturb me as a fan.

No exceptions!

Dan H
03-15-2007, 11:29 AM
I agree, I wish he would just go away.

I could care less what some polls say on this issue, the rule is the rule. And when you were as arrogant (and extreme liar) as he was about this, it makes it no better.

No Pete in the HOF, ever. Ever, ever, ever!!!!!

Wishing he would just go away takes the words right out of my mouth. This guy has changed his story so many times no one will ever know when he is telling the truth, if he ever tells the truth. There are plenty of lowlifes in the Hall of the Fame. This doesn't mean we need another one.

Fenway
03-15-2007, 11:33 AM
Rose is a complete piece of garbage


Still I have to concede he was a huge factor in the Reds winning the Series in 1975.


He broke up a double play with a vicious slide into Denny Doyle in the 6th inning of Game 7 that would have ended the inning.

REDS 6TH: Rose singled to right; Morgan flied out to right;
Bench forced Rose (shortstop to second) [Bench to second (error
by Doyle)]; Perez homered [Bench scored]; Foster flied out to
right; 2 R, 2 H, 1 E, 0 LOB. Reds 2, Red Sox 3.


The next batter was Tony Perez and Bill Lee threw him an ephus pitch which Perez just CRUSHED ( may be the hardest hit ball I have ever seen at Fenway )

soxfan13
03-15-2007, 11:35 AM
well, there is a pretty decent sized movement for buck weaver. just because you're played by john cusack in a movie dosent let you off the hook.

I think there is a bigger move for Weaver because he actually is only guilty of not ratting everyone out

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2007, 02:54 PM
There are only a few things one can do to get banned from baseball. Repeated drug use, like cocaine additions, can, but in all honesty, it's not looked upon as cheating like gambling or juicing is. Instances like Paul Molitor, Steve Howe, and Alan Wiggins never branded them as cheaters, but as addicts. Most bans were overturned eventually.

No exceptions!

Pete Rose's gambling wasn't an addiction?

Also, Pete Rose was never accused of cheating in any way, shape or form. He never fixed a game and never bet against the Reds.

Steve Howe received seven chances for his addiction. Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa are in Spring Training as I type this.

Pete Rose never received a second chance. If Bart didn't die, he would have been in the Hall of Fame in the early 1990s.

soxinem1
03-15-2007, 03:13 PM
Pete Rose's gambling wasn't an addiction?

Also, Pete Rose was never accused of cheating in any way, shape or form. He never fixed a game and never bet against the Reds. The others I mentioned never denied what they did, and plus, it has it's guidelines for banishment posted, as does gambling.

Steve Howe received seven chances for his addiction. Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa are in Spring Training as I type this.

Pete Rose never received a second chance. If Bart didn't die, he would have been in the Hall of Fame in the early 1990s.

Rose angrily denied all allegations, ripped both Vincent and Giammatti a new ass for lying about him, then agreed to a ban, then admitted to everything he was accused of.

Again, the notice posted in every major league clubhouse has had the same language in it since it was posted. It clearly states that if you bet on YOUR team (win or lose) you are out for good.

And having Sosa and Bonds in ST means nothing now. Test them. If they come back negative, toss them. You cannot get them for something they did when it was not banned.

Pete knew better. He knew how to read the checks he cashed when he charged fans for his autograph, and he saw the sign in the clubhouses at least 15-20K times as a player/manager.

He deserves no vote ever, dead, alive, or in line at the track. This should not even be an addressed issue, and it should get what it received in 1990 when he was first banned. No HOF induction, and no team involvement.

And isn't it amazing that he keeps making these revelations at strange times, like the start of the All-Star game, or right before the MLB season starts? What an arrogant attention-hound he is, to boot.

AuroraSoxFan
03-15-2007, 03:26 PM
I used to be a big fan/advocate of this guy. But I am way sick of hearing about his little act. 1st he bet on MLB while being fully aware that it was basically the biggest cardinal sin in the game. Then he lied about it for 15 years. they he finally admitted to it in a book. He didn't do that out of guilt, remorse, etc. He did it to make $$. He has switched stories around a few times since. I doubt anyone will ever know the FULL story with him. I will never knock him as a player. But I really wish he'd go away.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2007, 03:37 PM
And having Sosa and Bonds in ST means nothing now. Test them. If they come back negative, toss them. You cannot get them for something they did when it was not banned.

Testing means nothing (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1661791). The players are taking HGH, which Bud Selig does not test for. The MLB testing program is for show and for morons who take the detectible steroids. MLB could turn to an independent testing agency (the same one the Olympics and World Cup / European soccer uses) but they refuse to do so. MLB does not want to catch steroid users. They want to cover up steroid use as they have done since the 1980s.

If a player is stupid enough to test positive for a detectable steroid, they are given another chance as well. (Screw up and get caught once, 50 days. Twice 100 days). You have to be caught on three seperate occasions before being subject to a ban. Until 2005, four positives would result in a one year ban.

Drug Addicts - unlimited chances (well at least seven - nobody has tested positive eight times yet).
Steroid Users - At least two chances (the "lifetime" ban is subject to the commissioner's discretion).
Gambling Addicts - No chances.

If Pete Rose fixed games or bet against his team, I would agree he should not be reinstated. There is no evidence that he did either after an extensive investigation. Meanwhile, MLB conducts sham testing and a sham investigation of steroids which have a far greater negative impact on the game of baseball than Pete Rose betting a couple of thousand dollars a day on the Reds and a few other teams as manager.

Yes, gambling on baseball games and especially games involving a team you manage is terrible judgement and punishment was warranted. All I am saying is 18 years seems excessive, IMO, compared to everything else that has gone on in the MLB over this time frame.

Also, Bud Selig thinks you are wrong re: Pete Rose's involvement in the game. He has been invited to take part of several baseball activities during the World Series because he is a fan favorite and 2/3 of baseball fans feel he should be reinstated. MLB has also approved Pete Rose's exhibit inside the Great American Ballpark. I believe that he will be reinstated, at least as far as the HOF ballot is concerned, before the end of the decade. Then, his fate will be in the hands of the voters.

Fenway
03-15-2007, 03:40 PM
EVERY clubhouse has this posted AND it must be verbally told to a player ever single season

Rule 21(d):

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

soxinem1
03-15-2007, 05:35 PM
EVERY clubhouse has this posted AND it must be verbally told to a player ever single season

Rule 21(d):

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.


And that about sums it up. Can't be much clearer.

Once they post the doping rules in the same manner, then they shall apply with the same stiff penalty.

As I mentioned in a previous post, some of the pro-Pete folks need to read up on the history of gambling in pro sports dating back to the early 1900's, they may have a different philosophy then.

Oblong
03-15-2007, 06:55 PM
Pete Rose's gambling wasn't an addiction?

Also, Pete Rose was never accused of cheating in any way, shape or form. He never fixed a game and never bet against the Reds.

Steve Howe received seven chances for his addiction. Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa are in Spring Training as I type this.

Pete Rose never received a second chance. If Bart didn't die, he would have been in the Hall of Fame in the early 1990s.

The issue isn't cheating or betting against the Reds.

Gambling on the game is entirely different from drugs, steroids, or off the field exploits. What happens when Rose has $5K on Tuesday's game but only $50 on Wednesday's? It doesn't matter that he never bet gainst the team. You don't have to bet against them to harm them. Don't you think he'd he'd manage the game a little different from one night to the next? But they say Rose said he never bet against them and bet every night. Oh, I guess I'll believe him since he's been so upfront about this for the last 18 years. John Dowd said Rose did not bet on them every night. He's been more right than rose had.

The penalty for gambling on your own team is permanent. Not lifetime. Permanent. He knew it, he did it. He agreed to it.

Gossiping isn't a big deal to most people but if you are a therapist then it is and you should be punished by your industry.

Brian26
03-15-2007, 08:25 PM
When Rose first admitted to betting on the Reds, the point that many of his opponents in the media brought up was that he may have had the opportunity to use his players in a way that would have benefited him that night but hurt the team in upcoming games. This recent admission by Rose seems like an ignorant attempt to discount that theory. By saying he bet on the Reds every night and for every game, it seems like Rose is trying to exonerate himself in some way.

Oblong
03-15-2007, 09:49 PM
When Rose first admitted to betting on the Reds, the point that many of his opponents in the media brought up was that he may have had the opportunity to use his players in a way that would have benefited him that night but hurt the team in upcoming games. This recent admission by Rose seems like an ignorant attempt to discount that theory. By saying he bet on the Reds every night and for every game, it seems like Rose is trying to exonerate himself in some way.

I thought the same thing and really do believe he's saying that only to counter that charge. Dowd said today that he didn't bet on every game. How do you think he managed in those games vs. the ones he did bet on?

TornLabrum
03-15-2007, 09:49 PM
People make the comparison between Pete Rose and Joe Jackson a lot, but that's not very fair because prior to the 1919 Black Sox scandal, there was no rule that forbade gambling on games.

This statement is incorrect. One of the reasons for the formation of the National League in 1876 was because of players in the old National Association "hippodroming" (i.e. throwing games at the behest of gamblers or because they had money on the other team). One of the first rules instituted by the National League was that players could not bet on games.

FarWestChicago
03-15-2007, 09:57 PM
People make the comparison between Pete Rose and Joe Jackson a lot, but that's not very fair because prior to the 1919 Black Sox scandal, there was no rule that forbade gambling on games.

This statement is incorrect. One of the reasons for the formation of the National League in 1876 was because of players in the old National Association "hippodroming" (i.e. throwing games at the behest of gamblers or because they had money on the other team). One of the first rules instituted by the National League was that players could not bet on games.LOL, serious burn on 5187. Of course, that isn't anything new. :redneck

Brian26
03-15-2007, 10:16 PM
Dowd said today that he didn't bet on every game. How do you think he managed in those games vs. the ones he did bet on?

That's my point exactly. What's pathetic is that an entire five years after the initial admission of guilt, he comes up with this warped excuse. It's equivalent to "my dog ate my homework."

WhiteSox5187
03-16-2007, 12:36 AM
This statement is incorrect. One of the reasons for the formation of the National League in 1876 was because of players in the old National Association "hippodroming" (i.e. throwing games at the behest of gamblers or because they had money on the other team). One of the first rules instituted by the National League was that players could not bet on games.
There was a written rule, but it was never enforced (as you would see from my Hal Chase arguement) there was a huge chapter on this in a great book called "The Old Ball Game" by a gentleman who's name currently escapes me. No one was ever suspended for it. There is also mention of this in the book "Eight Men Out". This rule was never enforced, just like a rule that was passed by major league baseball in the wake of the cocaine scandals of the 1980s that said (and I don't have the official wording) "No player maybe under the influence of any drug not prescribed by a doctor." But MLB never tested anyone to make sure that rule was followed, if they had, we would not have had a steroid scandal. Just as had the American (and National) League actually cracked down on the gambling rule and punished someone (the Cubs were actually notorious for throwing games, never World Series games though) then there would have been no 1919 Black Sox scandal. Read "The Old Ballgame" if you haven't already, it's a fascinating book.

ewokpelts
03-16-2007, 01:27 AM
There was a written rule, but it was never enforced (as you would see from my Hal Chase arguement) there was a huge chapter on this in a great book called "The Old Ball Game" by a gentleman who's name currently escapes me. No one was ever suspended for it. There is also mention of this in the book "Eight Men Out". This rule was never enforced, just like a rule that was passed by major league baseball in the wake of the cocaine scandals of the 1980s that said (and I don't have the official wording) "No player maybe under the influence of any drug not prescribed by a doctor." But MLB never tested anyone to make sure that rule was followed, if they had, we would not have had a steroid scandal. Just as had the American (and National) League actually cracked down on the gambling rule and punished someone (the Cubs were actually notorious for throwing games, never World Series games though) then there would have been no 1919 Black Sox scandal. Read "The Old Ballgame" if you haven't already, it's a fascinating book.3 cubs players were BANNED for throwing the 1918 WS.

IlliniSox4Life
03-16-2007, 02:42 AM
Not in 1971.

I know homefield wasn't contingent on the ASG in 1971. I haven't been in a coma. But that doesn't change the fact that the MLB still does want the game to be played - if they wanted an autograph session they would have held an All Star Autograph Session and not an All Star GAME. I was merely saying that their recent change to the homefield rules reinforces their attitude that the all star game should be taken seriously. But then again, who knows, maybe MLB wants one of their most viewed events short of the World Series to show their all stars half assing it. That really showcases the sport in a good light and will turn the curious viewer who tuned in into a huge MLB fan.

WhiteSox5187
03-16-2007, 03:25 AM
3 cubs players were BANNED for throwing the 1918 WS.
Who? According my "research" (meaning of course Google) prior to 1920 (when the Black Sox were actually banned) the last person to be banned for gambling on baseball were Jim Devlin, George Hall and Al Nichols in 1877. All of whom were eventually reinstated (within a year or so). I didn't see anyone mentioned as being banned on the 1918 Cubs.

Also interestingly enough, I happened to see that Fergie Jenkins, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were all banned for life by Bowie Kuhn.

Mohoney
03-16-2007, 04:12 AM
If the Hall ever lets Barry Bonds in, then Pete Rose should be in the same induction class. Then we can put an end to all of it, because we will OFFICIALLY know where the Hall of Fame stands.

The hits king and the home run king will both be frauds. If Bonds gets in, then we have our answer: stats mean more than the integrity of the game. If that's the case, then let Rose in, too. Rose has no integrity, and he debases the Hall of Fame, but to even PRETEND that Bonds doesn't do the EXACT SAME THING is inexcusable.

In my opinion, Rose and Bonds are forever linked. They're both frauds. If you elect one, you have to elect the other; hopefully, you elect somebody else instead.

IndianWhiteSox
03-16-2007, 04:37 AM
If the Hall ever lets Barry Bonds in, then Pete Rose should be in the same induction class. Then we can put an end to all of it, because we will OFFICIALLY know where the Hall of Fame stands.

The hits king and the home run king will both be frauds. If Bonds gets in, then we have our answer: stats mean more than the integrity of the game. If that's the case, then let Rose in, too. Rose has no integrity, and he debases the Hall of Fame, but to even PRETEND that Bonds doesn't do the EXACT SAME THING is inexcusable.

In my opinion, Rose and Bonds are forever linked. They're both frauds. If you elect one, you have to elect the other; hopefully, you elect somebody else instead.

Your right for the most part, but Rose gambled on the Reds had nothing to do with helping him get his hits, unlike Bonds who broke the rules in order to break his record. Likewise, they are both losers who are disgraceful to the game.

Mohoney
03-16-2007, 04:45 AM
As long as he wasn't betting on games while he was a player, his performance as a player merits inclusion.

But, he deserves to be punished for betting on baseball.

So, don't allow him the possibility of entry while he is alive. Once he has passed on, then make him eligible and let the HOf voters decide.

Weasely compromise? Sure. Fire away. I don't care.

Oh, and Shoeless Joe belongs in the Hall.

This is a helluva way to look at this thing, Frater. If it can be proven that he wasn't gambling as a player, and his mortal sins were committed ONLY as a manager, then it's a very different scenario.

If Pete Rose could come right out and say, with irrefutable evidence, that he NEVER bet on baseball as a player, I would actually lean toward letting him in.

If his playing performance can be undeniably labeled pure as the driven snow, he's got a HUGE leg up on the 'roid guys. Then again, this is a huge hypothetical, and I doubt that it will come to fruition.

Mohoney
03-16-2007, 04:53 AM
Your right for the most part, but Rose gambled on the Reds had nothing to do with helping him get his hits, unlike Bonds who broke the rules in order to break his record. Likewise, they are both losers who are disgraceful to the game.

Rose said he never bet against the Reds. What if he's using a loophole? What if he bet against the Phillies or Expos? Technically, he's telling the truth, but the premise is still very flawed.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-16-2007, 03:23 PM
If the Hall ever lets Barry Bonds in, then Pete Rose should be in the same induction class. Then we can put an end to all of it, because we will OFFICIALLY know where the Hall of Fame stands.

The hits king and the home run king will both be frauds. If Bonds gets in, then we have our answer: stats mean more than the integrity of the game. If that's the case, then let Rose in, too. Rose has no integrity, and he debases the Hall of Fame, but to even PRETEND that Bonds doesn't do the EXACT SAME THING is inexcusable.

In my opinion, Rose and Bonds are forever linked. They're both frauds. If you elect one, you have to elect the other; hopefully, you elect somebody else instead.

This is a bad analogy. Bonds cheated to obtain his results on the field. All of Pete Rose's stats are legitimate. His gambling as manager of the Reds has nothing to do with his statistical reasons why he should be in the hall. You can object to his gambling and say that should keep him out but nobody can dispute that Pete Rose's statistics as a player were legitimate and one of the best ever recorded in baseball history.

Bonds' statistics are highly suspect from the mid to late 1990s forward and thus his accomplishments as a player are suspect. I doubt Bud Selig's integrity will be a factor in his future induction. Ditto Landis, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and other players who like Barry Bonds actually cheated during their playing career, unlike Pete Rose.

Railsplitter
03-16-2007, 07:23 PM
Why should somebody with Rose's record as a player be kept out of the Hall of fame for something he did AFTER his playing days were over?

Oblong
03-16-2007, 08:00 PM
Why should somebody with Rose's record as a player be kept out of the Hall of fame for something he did AFTER his playing days were over?

Because what he did was still as an active participant in the game. There shouldn't be a distinction between a player, coach, manager, GM, or owner. It's the game itself that was affected by his actions.

jabrch
03-16-2007, 08:41 PM
The one thing that always comes to my mind when I think about Pete Rose is how he bowled over that catcher during an All-Star game and essentially ended the guy's career.

The victim's name escapes me at the moment, but that one event alone really explains just how much of a piece of crap he is.

I don't want to here the BS that "oh, that's just him playing hard". "That's his passion!" BULL****!!!

What part of "All-Star Game" is not understood here???:?:

It's an exhibition game for the fans, and back then it meant nothing at all!!


If Fosse didn't want to get hit, he shouldn't have been blocking the plate.

I'm much more concerned by the fact that Pete bet on baseball, and his own team in fact, than I am that he bowled over a catcher who was blocking the plate.

TornLabrum
03-16-2007, 11:12 PM
There was a written rule, but it was never enforced (as you would see from my Hal Chase arguement) there was a huge chapter on this in a great book called "The Old Ball Game" by a gentleman who's name currently escapes me. No one was ever suspended for it. There is also mention of this in the book "Eight Men Out". This rule was never enforced, just like a rule that was passed by major league baseball in the wake of the cocaine scandals of the 1980s that said (and I don't have the official wording) "No player maybe under the influence of any drug not prescribed by a doctor." But MLB never tested anyone to make sure that rule was followed, if they had, we would not have had a steroid scandal. Just as had the American (and National) League actually cracked down on the gambling rule and punished someone (the Cubs were actually notorious for throwing games, never World Series games though) then there would have been no 1919 Black Sox scandal. Read "The Old Ballgame" if you haven't already, it's a fascinating book.

Tell that to the guys from Louisville who threw the pennant in 1877.

TornLabrum
03-16-2007, 11:15 PM
Who? According my "research" (meaning of course Google) prior to 1920 (when the Black Sox were actually banned) the last person to be banned for gambling on baseball were Jim Devlin, George Hall and Al Nichols in 1877. All of whom were eventually reinstated (within a year or so). I didn't see anyone mentioned as being banned on the 1918 Cubs.

Also interestingly enough, I happened to see that Fergie Jenkins, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were all banned for life by Bowie Kuhn.

Devlin never played another game after 1877. George Hall never played another game after 1877. Al Nichols never played another game after 1877. Mantle and Mays were never banned for life. They were banned as long as they worked as greeters in Vegas. I don't remember Jenkins ever being banned.

Way to play fast and loose with the facts.

FarWestChicago
03-16-2007, 11:17 PM
Devlin never played another game after 1877. George Hall never played another game after 1877. Al Nichols never played another game after 1877. Mantle and Mays were never banned for life. They were banned as long as they worked as greeters in Vegas. I don't remember Jenkins ever being banned.

Way to play fast and loose with the facts.Looks like 5187 and the truth are strange bedfellows. I'm completely shocked. :o:

soxinem1
03-17-2007, 08:41 AM
Devlin never played another game after 1877. George Hall never played another game after 1877. Al Nichols never played another game after 1877. Mantle and Mays were never banned for life. They were banned as long as they worked as greeters in Vegas. I don't remember Jenkins ever being banned.

Way to play fast and loose with the facts.

Good way to point out the facts. Fergie was never banned, in fact I don't believe he was even suspended. And, you are right, the Mays/Mantle banishments were provisional (as dumb as they were).

kevin57
03-17-2007, 01:32 PM
He doesn't deserve a shot at the HOF. Ever since the Black Sox baseball has rightly been super-sensitive about gambling. One day they may be just as stringent about steroids, though probably only after something equally as scandalous.

jdm2662
03-17-2007, 02:42 PM
For those questioning the banning of Fergie Jenkins, he was banned for cocaine in 1980, but was re-instated.

In late 1980, during a customs search of Jenkins in Toronto, Ontario (http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/to/toronto,_ontario.htm), a small amount of cannabis (http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/ca/cannabis.htm) was found. In response, Commissioner (http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/ba/baseball_commissioner.htm) Bowie Kuhn (http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/bo/bowie_kuhn.htm) banned him for life. Jenkins missed the rest of the 1980 (http://en.allexperts.com/e/0/1980_in_baseball.htm) season, but in an unprecedented action, an independent arbitor reinstated him, and he returned to the game, playing until his retirement following the 1983 (http://en.allexperts.com/e/0/1983_in_baseball.htm) season.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fe/ferguson_jenkins.htm

Baseball reference also mentions this:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Fergie_Jenkins

ondafarm
03-17-2007, 04:06 PM
Every baseball stadium I have ever been in, somewhere in the locker rooms or in an obvious place for the players to see, there is at least one sign warning all players about not betting on baseball, not associating with any professional gamblers and not tolerating anyone who did so.

It seems Rose violated virtually all these rules and I no longer have any sympathy for him.

In other words,

SO MUCH FOR PATHOS.

beckett21
03-17-2007, 04:16 PM
For those questioning the banning of Fergie Jenkins, he was banned for cocaine in 1980, but was re-instated.



http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fe/ferguson_jenkins.htm

Baseball reference also mentions this:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Fergie_Jenkins

Cannabis is pot, not cocaine.

They would probably have to ban half the league today. :redneck

jdm2662
03-17-2007, 04:40 PM
Cannabis is pot, not cocaine.

They would probably have to ban half the league today. :redneck


Well, Baseball reference says cocaine, that source says cannibus. So, who knows what it was, but you get the point.

Jenkins became the first player in baseball history to be permanently suspended from baseball for a drug related offense. He was arrested in Toronto (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Toronto%2C_ON) on August 25 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/August_25), 1980 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1980) for possession of cocaine. Fourteen days after the arrest, Commissioner Bowie Kuhn (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Bowie_Kuhn) banned Jenkins. In an unprecedented decision, he was reinstated by an independent arbitrator on September 22 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/September_22), 1980 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1980).

When you think about it, not banning pot has it's upside. How would half of the people of WSI not complain about the Freddy Garcia trade. :redneck

FarWestChicago
03-17-2007, 04:42 PM
Cannabis is pot, not cocaine.

They would probably have to ban half the league today. :redneckWell, Barry Zito for sure. :smokin:

beckett21
03-17-2007, 04:52 PM
Well, Baseball reference says cocaine, that source says cannibus. So, who knows what it was, but you get the point.

Point made.

FWIW I remember it being pot, but I was 10 at the time so my memory could be wrong.

Well, Barry Zito for sure. :smokin:

:D:

Oblong
03-17-2007, 05:05 PM
Any action against drugs would have to get player approval and we all know how that will play out. Labor law makes it tough to go after people for substance abuse. As much as we'd like to say just get rid of them the laws of the country don't accomodate that.

TornLabrum
03-17-2007, 07:16 PM
As I recall it, Jenkins was busted for carrying cocaine across the U.S. Canadian border. Now that my memory has been refreshed, Kuhn did attempt to ban him, but unlike gambling, the arbitrator ruled that punishment for any drug violations had to be part of the CBA.

ondafarm
03-17-2007, 09:57 PM
My feeling is that drugs have legal penalties built in, as in, state's or national laws punishing, possesion, transportation, sales and the use of them. Baseball should stringently insist that those be enforced. Incarcerated players obviously cannot play and the CBA does have provisions about players on probation and etc.

I see gambling as a seperate issue. I can bet on baseball just fine, but no players should be able to.

IndianWhiteSox
03-18-2007, 01:39 PM
My feeling is that drugs have legal penalties built in, as in, state's or national laws punishing, possesion, transportation, sales and the use of them. Baseball should stringently insist that those be enforced. Incarcerated players obviously cannot play and the CBA does have provisions about players on probation and etc.

I see gambling as a seperate issue. I can bet on baseball just fine, but no players should be able to.

Thank you I agree with just about everything you said, but the thing is even in the real world, if someone has an addiction like weed or alcohol, they can't get fired due to the fact that it would technically be a disability. However, if baseball did that, I'd have no problem with that at all.

minastirith67
03-18-2007, 09:55 PM
I'm going to go on the record here and state that I totally agree with George's article on the front page about Rose, Jackson, and the HOF.

Rose and Jackson and Weaver (among others) deserve in, based on their baseball merits alone. Baseball continues to dishonor itself with this massive disservice.

I met Rose in Vegas last year. He seemed a sad, beaten down man. It would mean the world for him to get admitted to the HOF.

TornLabrum
03-18-2007, 10:28 PM
I'm going to go on the record here and state that I totally agree with George's article on the front page about Rose, Jackson, and the HOF.

Rose and Jackson and Weaver (among others) deserve in, based on their baseball merits alone. Baseball continues to dishonor itself with this massive disservice.

I met Rose in Vegas last year. He seemed a sad, beaten down man. It would mean the world for him to get admitted to the HOF.

Jackson belongs in the Hall. Weaver's stats are nowhere near HOF caliber. Sorry. As for Rose, he should be kept out of the Hall for eternity. He knowingly broke the rule that is posted in every locker room. Not only that, he began doing it (as far as we know) in a year in which he was still listed as "player-manager." Nope. I don't care what his achievements are. His sorry ass should be banned.

Johnny Mostil
03-18-2007, 10:45 PM
I'm going to go on the record here and state that I totally agree with George's article on the front page about Rose, Jackson, and the HOF.


I thought this an interesting point:

Some baseball fans just don't get it, and I'm quite certain the most hardheaded of them will never get it. Baseball's Hall of Fame exists for only one good reason: to glorify the achievements of the sport's greatest contributors! There is NO good purpose to having a hall of fame that doesn't meet this yardstick. Every sport has it figured out. Every hall of fame glorifies their greatest, even if they have to overlook a few transgressions of their inducted luminaries -- for example, Paul Hornung's gambling or any of Michael Jordan's multiple obsessions. Every sport knows the true purpose of its hall of fame except baseball. Only baseball's uses its hall of fame to denigrate, pull down, and otherwise pull apart its greatest. And only baseball could seriously think its hall of fame is better for denigrating its best.

Somewhat to my astonishment, Bova may have underestimated the cynicism here. (Has he ever done that before?) In one sense, Rose isn't excluded from the "National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum." Even the Hall's web site notes (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/faq.htm#rose) (with my emphasis)

Throughout his career, Pete Rose was a generous supporter of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, donating more than 20 artifacts to the Museum's collections. Many of these artifacts are on display in the Museum.

I understand the HoF is in a separate wing from the museum. But is that a distinction without a difference? I'm puzzled why Rose can be considered to be so bad for the game that he should be banned from it and its Hall of Fame, but his career should still somehow be celebrated in Cooperstown . . .

PennStater98r
03-19-2007, 02:04 PM
Anyone wonder if he had any money on the 1970 All Star game now - in which he flattened the catcher on a play at home plate - in an exhibition game?

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Anyone wonder if he had any money on the 1970 All Star game now - in which he flattened the catcher on a play at home plate - in an exhibition game?


I hope that explains it, because I think that is one of the dirtiest plays I have ever seen. I know its "legal" but should he be celebrated for curtailing Fosse's career? Just talking about Rose makes me want to take a bath. What a douchebag.

AZChiSoxFan
03-20-2007, 08:22 PM
This is a bad analogy. Bonds cheated to obtain his results on the field. All of Pete Rose's stats are legitimate. His gambling as manager of the Reds has nothing to do with his statistical reasons why he should be in the hall. You can object to his gambling and say that should keep him out but nobody can dispute that Pete Rose's statistics as a player were legitimate and one of the best ever recorded in baseball history.

Bonds' statistics are highly suspect from the mid to late 1990s forward and thus his accomplishments as a player are suspect. I doubt Bud Selig's integrity will be a factor in his future induction. Ditto Landis, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and other players who like Barry Bonds actually cheated during their playing career, unlike Pete Rose.

SSH,

Why are you so certain that Rose didn't cheat or bet on baseball, while he was a player? Obviously I have no proof that he did but it seems odd to me that you are so sure he didn't, given his overall lack of integrity.