PDA

View Full Version : Selig mulling pardon for Rose



BCubb2003
07-27-2009, 10:13 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/07/27/2009-07-27_pete_rose.html

There's not a lot definite here, but the New York Daily News detects a change of heart.

NJReds
07-27-2009, 10:18 AM
Apparently Hank Aaron and some of the HOF vets got in Bud's ear.

I don't have a problem with Pete in the Hall. His plaque can cite his statistics, and the fact that he was banned from baseball for betting on the game. Same with Shoeless Joe, for that matter.

I was a huge Pete fan as a kid, but I don't think he should be allowed back into the game.

Jpup
07-27-2009, 10:18 AM
I think it's time, but Rose needs not be managing ever again. I think Pete would rather get back in the game than be in the Hall. Just my guess. I wish he could be on the field, but I don't think it would work out too well.

flyer85
07-27-2009, 10:18 AM
after only 12-13 years. Another 8-10 years and maybe the pen will start moving.

flyer85
07-27-2009, 10:20 AM
Apparently Hank Aaron and some of the HOF vets got in Bud's ear.

I don't have a problem with Pete in the Hall. His plaque can cite his statistics, and the fact that he was banned from baseball for betting on the game. Same with Shoeless Joe, for that matter.

I was a huge Pete fan as a kid, but I don't think he should be allowed back into the game, however.HOF eligibility and getting back in uniform on the field should not be tethered.

Jpup
07-27-2009, 10:22 AM
HOF eligibility and getting back in uniform on the field should not be tethered.

You know it will be though. That's the deal Selig will make IMO.

Az Red
07-27-2009, 10:28 AM
What a bench/hitting coach he would make. How about advanced scout? No manager jobs, not that any team would offer, but he should have been in the hall long ago.

SirFelixCat
07-27-2009, 10:47 AM
You know it will be though. That's the deal Selig will make IMO.

Exactly. He should be in the Hall, not in baseball, imo.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 10:49 AM
Exactly. He should be in the Hall, not in baseball, imo.

Selig already offered Rose a deal where he'd get into the Hall, but remained out of baseball forever.

Rose passed.

westofyou
07-27-2009, 10:54 AM
What a bench/hitting coach he would make. How about advanced scout? No manager jobs, not that any team would offer, but he should have been in the hall long ago.

Coach?

Nope, he can't sit in a dugout on any game day IMO, he gave up his rights to that years ago.

NJReds
07-27-2009, 11:06 AM
Selig already offered Rose a deal where he'd get into the Hall, but remained out of baseball forever.

Rose passed.

I never heard that before. That's interesting. I guess he doesn't care about the Hall after all.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 11:10 AM
I never heard that before. That's interesting. I guess he doesn't care about the Hall after all.

Heard it on Mike & Mike this morning.

I think Jayson Stark was the reporter.

Said Rose was offered the deal, passed on it b/c he wanted to manage again.

westofyou
07-27-2009, 11:13 AM
HOF decides who gets in not MLB

from wiki



Hall of Fame Eligibility
On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted to formally exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame by way of the Baseball Writers Association of America vote. Rose is the only living member of the ineligible list. Players who were not selected by the BWAA could be considered by the Veterans Committee in the first year after they would have lost their place on the Baseball Writers Association of America's ballot. Under the Hall's rules, players may appear on the ballot for only fifteen years, beginning five years after they retire. Had he not been banned from baseball, Rose's name could have been on the writers' ballot beginning in 1992 and ending in 2006.[12] He would have been eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee in 2007, but did not appear on the ballot.[13] In 2008 the Veterans Committee barred players[14] and managers[15] on the ineligible list from consideration, more than likely ending any chance of Rose being elected to the Hall of Fame.

cumberlandreds
07-27-2009, 11:20 AM
HOF decides who gets in not MLB

from wiki

If he's taken off the inelgible list then he can be voted in. I don't think Pete gets in until he's dead,JMO.

George Anderson
07-27-2009, 11:27 AM
Apparently Hank Aaron and some of the HOF vets got in Bud's ear.

I don't have a problem with Pete in the Hall. His plaque can cite his statistics, and the fact that he was banned from baseball for betting on the game. Same with Shoeless Joe, for that matter.

I was a huge Pete fan as a kid, but I don't think he should be allowed back into the game.

I agree, he has no business being back on the field ever again.

It's funny because I gave up years ago ever caring about the whole Rose situation but I gotta admit seeing this kinda makes me excited.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2009, 11:32 AM
I think he'd be an outstanding hitting coach. But I don't know if I'd trust him. It's really as simple as that.

I do think he'd be a really good minor league and Spring Training guy. Perhaps a per diem that keeps him around the team but not an official coach? Kind of a Mario Soto for struggling hitters?

nate
07-27-2009, 11:36 AM
I think he'd be an outstanding hitting coach. But I don't know if I'd trust him. It's really as simple as that.

I do think he'd be a really good minor league and Spring Training guy. Perhaps a per diem that keeps him around the team but not an official coach? Kind of a Mario Soto for struggling hitters?

That could be a full-time job with the Reds!

:cool:

Scrap Irony
07-27-2009, 11:48 AM
Yep, and he'd be good at it. If he doesn't let his ego get in the way. An ego that size is a great thing to have as an athlete. Lousy thing to have outside of sports.

icehole3
07-27-2009, 11:53 AM
If they let Pete in the hall of fame then Im OK with letting all the Junkies in McGwire, Clemons, ARod, Bonds, let all the junkies in.

oneupper
07-27-2009, 11:54 AM
If they let Pete in the hall of fame then Im OK with letting all the Junkies in McGwire, Clemons, ARod, Bonds, let all the junkies in.

And that is EXACTLY why Selig is mulling Pete's reinstatement.

He wants to lower the HOF's moral bar for everyone, including himself.

OnBaseMachine
07-27-2009, 12:10 PM
Ball Rolling Towards Rose Eligibility
And the clues continue to mount.

The teary-eyed communion between Sparky Anderson and Pete Rose at a baseball memorabilia shop here in Cooperstown on Saturday wasn't the only hint over induction weekend that the ice may be breaking around Rose's 20 years in suspended animation - and eligibility for, if not necessarily election to, the Hall, might be in the offing.

The impeccable Bill Madden reports in today's New York Daily News that Hank Aaron held a "seemingly impromptu" gaggle with a handful of reporters on Saturday during which he not only endorsed an asterisk for steroid users who reach Cooperstown, but brought Rose up himself and said "I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there."

On Saturday night I reported that Rose's old Cincinnati manager stunned onlookers in the card shop in which Rose spends most of induction weekend, by bounding through its doors to have a brief conversation with him. Saying he had been convinced of the rightness of the timing by his wife, Anderson told Rose: "You made some mistakes 20 years ago, Pete, but that shouldn't detract from your contributions to the game."

I had the briefest of conversations with Rose yesterday. He confirmed the Anderson visit, said it had been "a long time" since they had last talked (although he wasn't certain it was the full two decades). Pete Rose is never tight-lipped about his prospects for reinstatement, but he was clearly being circumspect. "Sparky was here. Morgan was here. Perez was here. Schmidt was here." He smiled, then answered my question about the ultimate outcome of his saga. "I think it'll be all right."

With the advent of increased Hall of Famer influence on the Hall of Fame itself, Joe Morgan in particular has grown powerful within the Cooperstown infrastructure. A Morgan greeting to Rose wouldn't mean much. A Morgan word to Bud Selig about 'time served' might be - and Madden reports at least one other Hall of Famer is arguing such a line.

I was a steadfast opponent of Rose's reinstatement for all of his first fifteen years of banishment. My belief was, even if he bet only on the Reds to win, this constituted a kind of passive/aggressive form of game-fixing: his use of players, especially his best relief pitchers, might be much more aggressive in games on which he had a wager, than those he did not. But the light bulb has slowly flickered on above Pete's head, he has lowered the volume on his woe-is-me-ism, and most importantly, his crimes have been contextualized by the PED-era. There is no form of game-fixing more subtle nor more insidious than juicing. Not even gambling.

The 20th Anniversary of his banishment is a month away: August 24th. It has served its purpose. Rose will never get a significant job in the game; if necessary he can be statutorily prevented from getting one. Who knows? A reinstated Rose might even be a terrific in-person warning to minor league players and young big leaguers he might serve as a hitting coach, about the consequences of breaking the key rules - the ones about gambling, and the ones about performance-enhancers.

It's time.

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/07/ball_rolling_towards_rose_elig.html

M2
07-27-2009, 12:19 PM
Trying to decipher the mind of Bud Selig here (always a risky proposition), but perhaps Rose's chances of reinstatement improve the longer the Reds stay in the hole. That's based on the theory that Bud figures he might need to throw Cincinnati fans a bone.

Mind you, many don't want or particularly care about that bone and those that do probably won't be any more interested in the current product, but I could see Bud thinking along those lines.

Jpup
07-27-2009, 12:26 PM
Trying to decipher the mind of Bud Selig here (always a risky proposition), but perhaps Rose's chances of reinstatement improve the longer the Reds stay in the hole. That's based on the theory that Bud figures he might need to throw Cincinnati fans a bone.

Mind you, many don't want or particularly care about that bone and those that do probably won't be any more interested in the current product, but I could see Bud thinking along those lines.

I would guess that Bob has his ear as well.

redsfan4445
07-27-2009, 12:30 PM
Who would you rather see manage the Reds???? A Dusty Baker playing guys most of the time that cant find 1st and guys that only hustle part of the time?? or a Rose that would demand hustle and accountability? AND would get the front office to get players like a LaRussa can in St. Louis?

hmmmm im sick of losing anything would be a plus wouldnt it now?

Scrap Irony
07-27-2009, 12:32 PM
Anything that doesn't embarrass the game or the Reds. Anything within the rules.

And I can't trust Rose to do those things.

nate
07-27-2009, 12:41 PM
Who would you rather see manage the Reds???? A Dusty Baker playing guys most of the time that cant find 1st and guys that only hustle part of the time?? or a Rose that would demand hustle and accountability? AND would get the front office to get players like a LaRussa can in St. Louis?

hmmmm im sick of losing anything would be a plus wouldnt it now?

I could care less who manages the Reds if they get good players that win.

I could care less about bad players who hustle and lose over good players who win.

Hustle, in a vacuum is nothing. A manager, without talent to win, makes no difference.

nate
07-27-2009, 12:42 PM
Anything that doesn't embarrass the game or the Reds. Anything within the rules.

And I can't trust Rose to do those things.

A good point.

It's a shame because Pete does know baseball. He just doesn't have any sense.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 12:45 PM
Who would you rather see manage the Reds???? A Dusty Baker playing guys most of the time that cant find 1st and guys that only hustle part of the time?? or a Rose that would demand hustle and accountability? AND would get the front office to get players like a LaRussa can in St. Louis?

hmmmm im sick of losing anything would be a plus wouldnt it now?

I'd rather have The Dusty than Pete Rose managing.

Sea Ray
07-27-2009, 12:57 PM
I've been very hard on Pete and have gone on record as saying he's been lying since I saw him at that 8-24-89 press conference but it's been 20 yrs and I think it's time to move on. I'd reinstate him with certain anti gambling restrictions on and a no tolerance attitude if he screws up. I'd like to see him on the writers ballot for a few years and then go to the vets committee. I'm not sure that he'd get 75% from the writers. I think that could be a struggle.

I am ready to move on

mth123
07-27-2009, 01:34 PM
Yes to the Hall of Fame. No to a job with Baseball.

Is the job in baseball thing even an issue anymore? Even if somebody would hire him (which I doubt), Pete's pushing 70 and it would be time for him to retire. I don't think a job in baseball in anythng other than a ceremonial type of position is realistic at this point.

Roy Tucker
07-27-2009, 01:49 PM
There is more than a little doubt in my mind that the BBWA would vote him into the HoF even if he were elgible.

About the only baseball job I can even remotely see him having is going around to teams to give an anti-gambling talk.

AmarilloRed
07-27-2009, 02:24 PM
I saw on Sportcenter that Pete would not be allowed to manage, even if he was reinstated. I think a coaching position or scouting job would still be possible, though.

Caveat Emperor
07-27-2009, 02:30 PM
There is more than a little doubt in my mind that the BBWA would vote him into the HoF even if he were elgible.

About the only baseball job I can even remotely see him having is going around to teams to give an anti-gambling talk.

If baseball gave their blessing to Rose via reinstatement, he'd be a Hall of Famer after a proper amount of time (i.e the number of years the writers make him wait on THEM before they let him). I have very little doubt in my mind he'd get voted in by the writers after 2 or 3 tries.

As for the second issue of Pete benig involved in baseball -- he's 68 years old. When you couple his age with his baggage, I don't see any team ever giving him a job of consequence in baseball again. It's not like he was a great, game-changing manager to begin with. At most, it'd be something like a roving hitting instructor, where he'd have little opportunity to damage the sport.

I'm by no means a Rose supporter or a Rose kool-aid drinker, but I agree that the punishment has been served. Twenty years away banishment is more than enough for the crime he committed, IMO. Baseball gains nothing by having him die an outcast, and stands to gain at least something (even if it's just some good feelnigs and a truckload of PR) from welcoming him back to the game.

BCubb2003
07-27-2009, 02:31 PM
Meet your new broadcast team of Marty, Thom, Cowboy, Jim, George, Chris and Pete.

M2
07-27-2009, 02:33 PM
I saw on Sportcenter that Pete would not be allowed to manage, even if he was reinstated. I think a coaching position or scouting job would still be possible, though.

*cough cough* announcer *cough cough*

Forget about the team on the field, make sure you watch Pete Rose broadcasting Reds games. At least, that would seem to be the place where he could give the franchise its biggest boost.

Reds4Life
07-27-2009, 02:36 PM
If reinstated, Pete should never be in a position to influence the outcome of a game. Be it a manager, coach, or anything else, it cannot be allowed to happen.

George Anderson
07-27-2009, 02:37 PM
*cough cough* announcer *cough cough*

Forget about the team on the field, make sure you watch Pete Rose broadcasting Reds games. At least, that would seem to be the place where he could give the franchise its biggest boost.

If Pete is ever reinstated he will go wherever the money is whether it is in broadcasting, coaching or being a beer vendor. Judging from Pete's past, if the money is right he will do anything.

BCubb2003
07-27-2009, 02:42 PM
I have to admit I'd rather see Pete on ESPN than Jim Bowden or Steve Phillips.

acredsfan
07-27-2009, 02:45 PM
I feel like many others that he should be reinstated. He should be in the HOF because he was one of the best players in the game. Where I see the biggest split is whether he should be allowed to coach again. I think he should be allowed to do what many other former players are doing such as being an extra coach in spring training and a roving instructor just because he would not have a big impact on the outcome of a game but could help repair some damage he has done to himself by helping out the young players who could really benefit from his experience. I really feel it would be a waste to have someone of his knowledge not be able to spread it on to this generation of players. He has been punished, but should also have some restrictions to protect baseball from being tarnished further. I think this means no permanent position with a big league club, but not necessarily no affiliation at all.

westofyou
07-27-2009, 02:47 PM
Who would you rather see manage the Reds???? A Dusty Baker playing guys most of the time that cant find 1st and guys that only hustle part of the time?? or a Rose that would demand hustle and accountability? AND would get the front office to get players like a LaRussa can in St. Louis?





Logic and a sense of history is a nice tool when looking at the Pete Rose in the dugout scenario, it would be nice if we all would use it whenever the fellows name comes up around here. It's been 20 years since Pete painted himself in the corner with his own actions, my memory touches on the fact that 20 years ago the Reds had a pretty good team and Pete let his habits drive his days and nights, and most of these habits had NOTHING to do with the Reds welfare and 1989 was one of the most painful baseball seasons I ever had to endure, chances are the most hustling Pete did that year was hustling to the clubhouse phone to make a bet, that alone makes him forever disqualified from managing any baseball team that I care about.

If you want that man in the dugout than I can't even begin to wonder why.

BCubb2003
07-27-2009, 03:04 PM
Worst-case scenario, Pete becomes a spring training instructor, things seem to be going OK, but he attracts a young ballplayer or two with the same proclivities and the mess begins again.

icehole3
07-27-2009, 03:07 PM
I'd like to see Shoeless Joe reinstated too, like Hank Aaron said, we've all made mistakes, let the guys in the Hall, it's good for baseball.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 03:15 PM
Worst-case scenario, Pete becomes a spring training instructor, things seem to be going OK, but he attracts a young ballplayer or two with the same proclivities and the mess begins again.

Sure, Arizona's got casinos and horse tracks, right?

Sea Ray
07-27-2009, 03:20 PM
I'd like to see Shoeless Joe reinstated too, like Hank Aaron said, we've all made mistakes, let the guys in the Hall, it's good for baseball.

If that's what Aaron said then it's pretty stupid. Mistakes, OK. But betting on baseball? :confused:

WMR
07-27-2009, 03:25 PM
No to managing, but I'd be fine if they would let him be a hitting coach or even a roving hitting coach or maybe just being allowed to come to Spring Training to teach hitting fundamentals ...

TRF
07-27-2009, 03:28 PM
Yeah, lets keep talking about Rose.

BTW isn't 2010 Larkin's first year of HOF eligibility?

Cyclone792
07-27-2009, 03:59 PM
BTW isn't 2010 Larkin's first year of HOF eligibility?

Yes it is, and I'm not interested in Pete Rose overshadowing it either.

SunDeck
07-27-2009, 07:07 PM
Go ahead and reinstate him. Let McGwire and Bonds in. Build an exhibit on to the Hall and call it "Black Eyes on America's Past Time".

Seriously, I like the suggestion that his plaque should explain his achievements, but should also explain that he was banned from baseball for betting on the game. The story of Pete Rose is a rags to riches to strange curiousity and cautionary tale that should be read by all baseball fans.

As to Pete managing, no way. He's a gambling addict who has never dealt with his problems. He's not aiming to get reinstated to manage, anyway. He just wants this "closure" story to get underway so he can find a new revenue stream to fund his habit.

cincinnati chili
07-27-2009, 07:15 PM
There is more than a little doubt in my mind that the BBWA would vote him into the HoF even if he were elgible.

.

I thought I heard that because he's been retired for more than 15 years, the veterans committee would get to choose, rather than the writers.

Assuming I'm right (always a risk thing to do), until Bob Feller and his ilk kick it, there will be plenty of resistance from the veterans committee as well.

My opinion: Rose's sins were serious, but a 20 year ban is also a serious punishment. I'm fine with a probationary reinstatement. As a Reds fan, I don't want him managing. If his old radio show was any indicator, I don't think I'd like him to announce either.

savafan
07-27-2009, 07:26 PM
What kind of influence does a hitting coach have on a game? I haven't ever known a hitting coach to make a game changing decision.

I know all about 1919 and Shoeless Joe and blah blah blah, but seriously, that was a different time, that was a power hungry commissioner (the first in the history of the sport), and those were greedy owners who held far more control over the sport than today's owners.

Pete Rose bet on baseball games. He bet on the team he managed to win. He was banished for it, and later (okay, much later) he admitted to it. It happened. It didn't almost destroy baseball. Fans weren't driven away from the sport because of Rose's gambling.

So many of you argue that gambling is the worst thing that can happen in professional sports, because it calls into question the legitimacy of the outcome of the game. Again, blah blah blah. We're not living in 1919, we're living in 2009, and right now, I assure you, the game of baseball is hurt far more in the eyes of the fans by the ongoing steroid and PED phenomenon. Statistics, seasons, records, championships, longevity of careers, and briefness of others...the legitimacy of all of these have been called into question in this sport, in our time.

What Pete Rose did happened, and we moved on. I don't question the multiple second place finishes of the 1980's, but I do question the all-time career homerun and single season homerun records, the all-time career homerun leaders list, and the legitimate outcome of every game played for most of the past two decades.

westofyou
07-27-2009, 09:14 PM
What kind of influence does a hitting coach have on a game? I haven't ever known a hitting coach to make a game changing decision.

I know all about 1919 and Shoeless Joe and blah blah blah, but seriously, that was a different time, that was a power hungry commissioner (the first in the history of the sport), and those were greedy owners who held far more control over the sport than today's owners.

Pete Rose bet on baseball games. He bet on the team he managed to win. He was banished for it, and later (okay, much later) he admitted to it. It happened. It didn't almost destroy baseball. Fans weren't driven away from the sport because of Rose's gambling.

So many of you argue that gambling is the worst thing that can happen in professional sports, because it calls into question the legitimacy of the outcome of the game. Again, blah blah blah. We're not living in 1919, we're living in 2009, and right now, I assure you, the game of baseball is hurt far more in the eyes of the fans by the ongoing steroid and PED phenomenon. Statistics, seasons, records, championships, longevity of careers, and briefness of others...the legitimacy of all of these have been called into question in this sport, in our time.

What Pete Rose did happened, and we moved on. I don't question the multiple second place finishes of the 1980's, but I do question the all-time career homerun and single season homerun records, the all-time career homerun leaders list, and the legitimate outcome of every game played for most of the past two decades.

Keep trying to convince yourself that gambling doesn't hurt baseball, keep trying to ignore the rule on the wall he walked by as a player and a manager, keep trying to make what Pete did seem ok.

If it makes you feel better keep trying, but gambling isn't the same as steroids, it steals the game from everyone but the guy making the bet and selling the game out.

It's the worst thing that can happen, if you don't think so then follow pro wrestling, that's as fixed as it gets.

savafan
07-27-2009, 09:24 PM
It's the worst thing that can happen, if you don't think so then follow pro wrestling, that's as fixed as it gets.

The owners knowing that players were juicing and pimping up the chase for 61 homers was pretty fixed too.

We don't have a rash of crooked gamblers trying to ruin the game today, but we do have a rash of guys who have cheated the fans and the history of the game all for the sake of $. Those are the facts. I don't lose sleep over the probability of gambling in baseball, because how many times has it happened in the last 146 years?

Now, ask yourself how many times a steroid user has impacted the outcome of a game over those same last 146 years. I wonder which is more rampant?

GAC
07-27-2009, 09:28 PM
Pete belongs in the HOF. But not back in baseball in any format.

If a guy like Vick can be given a reprieve after such a short time, and what he did was despicable, then Rose should be allowed to be voted on, as far as HOF consideration.

Forgiveness does not involve forgetting one's past actions. Guys like Vick and Rose will have to live with that for the rest of their lives regardless.

Matt700wlw
07-27-2009, 09:31 PM
The validity of the HR record, and the records you mentioned, Sava can be questioned, as you stated.

Pete Rose's records can't.

I'm fine if Pete can never step foot on a baseball field again for a franchise, that's his doing, and the only evidence found was that he bet on baseball as a manager, and not while he was playing...

The playing career, and the 4256 hits are his doing too, which is what should be celebrated. There's no question about those accomplishments. That's what's Hall of Fame worthy.

GAC
07-27-2009, 09:32 PM
The owners knowing that players were juicing and pimping up the chase for 61 homers was pretty fixed too.

We don't have a rash of crooked gamblers trying to ruin the game today, but we do have a rash of guys who have cheated the fans and the history of the game all for the sake of $. Those are the facts. I don't lose sleep over the probability of gambling in baseball, because how many times has it happened in the last 146 years?

Now, ask yourself how many times a steroid user has impacted the outcome of a game over those same last 146 years. I wonder which is more rampant?

But there wasn't any set rule, until in recent years, against steroid/performance enhancer usage. No set policy by MLB.

There was on gambling. And every player that walked in that clubhouse knew that.

One may frown on certain behavior - whether it's steroids or greenies; but until there is a set rule prohibiting it, not much one can do.

Mainspark
07-27-2009, 09:37 PM
This column by The Chicago Tribune's Phil Rogers would appear to indicate this has all but much ado about nothing — again...

Poor Pete Rose.

He's 68, as one-dimensional as ever and still paying for mistakes he made in 1987, when his running buddies were Tommy Gioiosa, Paul Janszen and Ron Peters, who wouldn't have survived three episodes on "The Sopranos." The 20-year anniversary of Rose's lifetime ban is approaching, and there's no end in sight, despite moments of false hope.

One of those came on Monday.

Rose, now a West Coast guy, awoke to reports in the New York Daily News that Henry Aaron and other unnamed Hall of Famers had been lobbying Commissioner Bud Selig for a favorable ruling on Rose's application for reinstatement, filed in 1997. But Selig and other Major League Baseball officials had quashed that story before the day was over.

Selig was so angry about the Daily News story, built largely around one quote from Aaron, that sources indicated he was strongly considering authorizing a statement contradicting it.

Reached by the Tribune in his Milwaukee office, Selig declined to comment, saying only that nothing had changed since he was asked about the Rose case during a group interview in St. Louis on July 14.

"There's nothing new," he said the day of the All-Star Game. "We are reviewing it. Since I'm the judge and jury in that case, I don't think I'm going to comment beyond that."

Selig annually uses the Hall of Fame induction weekend to discuss major issues in the game with Hall of Famers. The Daily News reported that several Hall of Famers have been attempting to persuade Selig into lifting the ban, which was instituted Aug. 24, 1989, but the paper quoted only Aaron.

"I would like to see Pete in," he said during an informal interview Saturday. "He belongs there."

Selig and Aaron speak regularly, and it would be easy to assume that Aaron wouldn't speak in favor of Rose's reinstatement without knowing it was under consideration. But it appears the Daily News read too much into Aaron's comments.

Selig rarely has commented about Rose's status in anything but the most cryptic terms -- aware that the review ultimately falls to him -- but is unlikely to allow him back into uniform or onto the Hall of Fame ballot.

Some observers believe Selig's stance is personal in nature, as some have blamed the agonizing investigation into Rose's gambling for the sudden death of then-Commissioner Bart Giamatti. But it goes far beyond that, dealing with Rose's long-held contention that he never bet on baseball and possibly some facts about Rose's later years discovered during the review of his appeal.

Selig met with Rose in 2003 and appeared to be moving toward removing him from the ineligible list when the all-time hits leader released his autobiography, "My Prison Without Bars," in January 2004.

Rose, who defied Giamatti by immediately challenging findings of MLB's 1989 investigation, had steadfastly maintained that he never bet on baseball. He changed his stance in the book, and at the time he said he hoped his admission would persuade Selig to lift the ban implemented by Giamatti. But instead communication between his lawyers and MLB reportedly came to a halt.

Selig was angered both that Rose came clean only to make a buck and that transcripts from the book were made public on the same day the Hall of Fame released the 2004 vote, overshadowing the election of Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley.

Contrary to the Daily News story, there has been no movement by Rose's peers to have him take a seat among the greats in Cooperstown. The Hall of Famers are hard-liners when it comes to respect for the game, and it's hard to see that they would elect Rose if he ever made it to a vote.

Lobbying for Rose?

Well, Aaron was in the lobby of the storied Otesaga Hotel when he commented about Rose. But as for Rose ever being welcomed there on induction weekend, don't bet on it.

savafan
07-27-2009, 09:38 PM
But there wasn't any set rule, until in recent years, against steroid/performance enhancer usage. No set policy by MLB.

There was on gambling. And every player that walked in that clubhouse knew that.

One may frown on certain behavior - whether it's steroids or greenies; but until there is a set rule prohibiting it, not much one can do.

True, there is no rule in baseball, but there are federal laws.


Anabolic steroids, under the federal law of the United States, are classified as Schedule III drugs of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as of February 27, 1991. The CSA has been enacted into law by the United States Congress as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1970. This federal legislation serves as the US regulatory policy relating to manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of certain drugs including anabolic steroids.

CSA has five classifications (Schedule I-V) and anabolic steroids, as mentioned above, fall under Schedule III. According to federal law, prescriptions of Schedule III drugs, such as anabolic steroids, can be refilled for up to five times within a six-month period.

Under the CSA, a person has to have a valid prescription in order to obtain anabolic steroids. Possession or sale of anabolic steroids without prescription is considered an illegal act. Simple possession of illegally acquired anabolic steroids entails a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and a minimum fine of $1000 in the case of first-time offenders. Trafficking of anabolic steroids carries stiffer penalties as federal law calls for a maximum imprisonment for five years and a $250,000 fine for first-time offenders. The maximum length of imprisonment and the maximum monetary fine is doubled if it is a second drug offense.

So don't ban them from the game, but lock them up and have them serve their time, same as any other citizen. There are laws on drugs in this country, and every American or person setting foot here should know that.

GAC
07-27-2009, 10:08 PM
So...according to federal law, they have to have a Dr's prescription. That's easy enough to do. :lol:

Sea Ray
07-27-2009, 11:00 PM
So many of you argue that gambling is the worst thing that can happen in professional sports, because it calls into question the legitimacy of the outcome of the game. Again, blah blah blah. We're not living in 1919, we're living in 2009, and right now, I assure you, the game of baseball is hurt far more in the eyes of the fans by the ongoing steroid and PED phenomenon. Statistics, seasons, records, championships, longevity of careers, and briefness of others...the legitimacy of all of these have been called into question in this sport, in our time.


So you think using PEDs deserves a lifetime ban? Or do you think 1st gambling offense should be a 50 game suspension?

Sea Ray
07-27-2009, 11:06 PM
Peter Gammons also said tonight that Selig is not close to reinstating Pete. There really is nothing to this other than Hank Aaron giving his opinion.

If Selig reinstates Pete that only begins the process. Pete still would have to garner enough votes to get in and I don't see that happening right away. My guess is they'd bend the rules here and let the sportswriters vote for a few years before sending him to the veterans committee. Even then he'll need 75% support and that's a hard nut to crack.

Degenerate39
07-27-2009, 11:27 PM
I'd like to see him reinstated. I'd also like to see him given the chance to manage or coach again but that won't happen. I'd fire Baker in a heart beat and get Rose in as manager

westofyou
07-28-2009, 12:00 AM
The owners knowing that players were juicing and pimping up the chase for 61 homers was pretty fixed too.

We don't have a rash of crooked gamblers trying to ruin the game today, but we do have a rash of guys who have cheated the fans and the history of the game all for the sake of $. Those are the facts. I don't lose sleep over the probability of gambling in baseball, because how many times has it happened in the last 146 years?

Now, ask yourself how many times a steroid user has impacted the outcome of a game over those same last 146 years. I wonder which is more rampant?

Pete Rose used Greenies, he admitted it in an interview in 1980

Now ask yourself, how many times was a game affected by Pete Roses drug use and how many games were affected by Pete Roses gambling habit.

Which one affects the game more?

acredsfan
07-28-2009, 01:06 AM
So you think using PEDs deserves a lifetime ban? Or do you think 1st gambling offense should be a 50 game suspension?Interesting thought. A thought in which I find actually helping Pete out because PEDs tarnished an entire era, and not just for one player or one team but for baseball as a whole. Why should steroid users be pardoned and Pete not? Prove Pete bet against the Reds and actually made decisions on purpose that lost games and I'll have a harder time forgiving him. Players didn't have a choice of effecting games or not by using PEDs. If they chose to use, they effected the games they played in. Barry Bonds won games by cheating. He could carry a team and change the outcome of a game as he shot up steroids. Same with Sosa. I know the baseball purists call betting on baseball a cardinal sin, but wouldn't it have been better served if baseball suspended Rose for a definite period of time, made him get help, and tell him that if he screwed up again the consequences would be permanent?

I don't buy into betting being the worst thing a player can do. Throwing a game to win a bet is the worst thing a player or manager can do, and it isn't proven he did that. Pete hated losing, the question is which he hated to lose the most, his games which paid him the money to gamble, or the bets he placed. My guess is he felt he should win every night, so I'm not quick to accuse him of throwing games.

acredsfan
07-28-2009, 01:16 AM
Pete Rose used Greenies, he admitted it in an interview in 1980

Now ask yourself, how many times was a game affected by Pete Roses drug use and how many games were affected by Pete Roses gambling habit.

Which one affects the game more?You can't ask that question without knowing for a fact that he intentionally lost games. Many players in that era admitted to using Greenies. In context, it doesn't make for a valid argument and is an issue that should be handled separately. Baseball would not hold up through a witch hunt trying to find players from that era that used any form of PEDs. The reason the current PED problem has become such a big issue is becasue it was exposed to the public while many sacred records were being broken. Players must be punished because they made baseball look stupid. They should be punished because they cheated, but ultimately the only way to move on is prevention, not just punishing as it arises. I don't like what Pete did, and I feel like he deserves harsh punishment, but I think it is only fair to give him a second chance after 20 years if we give current players a second chance after only 50 games. Trying to call one worse than the other is splitting hairs, after all, is gambling without proving he threw games 65 times worse than what ARod, Barry Bonds, and Sammy Sosa did to this game? I don't think so.

westofyou
07-28-2009, 01:43 AM
I don't think so.
And I do.

mbgrayson
07-28-2009, 01:50 AM
Pete Rose used Greenies, he admitted it in an interview in 1980

Now ask yourself, how many times was a game affected by Pete Roses drug use and how many games were affected by Pete Roses gambling habit.

Which one affects the game more?

It is very well documented that Greenies were extremely common in baseball for decades. They were not banned by MLB until 2005.



Players pop "greenies" or "beans" before games to increase focus and to shake their bodies from fatigue caused by their grueling schedule. The late Ken Caminiti told SI in 2002 that only one or two players per team competed without greenies--those exceptions are said to be "playing naked." After a night of drinking (which is often used to come down from the high of the amphetamines), Caminiti said, "You take some pills, go out and run in the outfield, and you get the blood flowing. All of a sudden you feel much better. There were other times when you'd say, 'I feel good enough to play naked today, but you know what? I can feel even better.' So you'd take them then too."





There used to be two coffee pots in each clubhouse, one labeled "regular" and one labeled "hot." Or sometimes it was "unleaded" and "leaded."

Baseball players quickly figured out what chemists know, that caffeine can ramp up the effectiveness of other substances. So they dumped a handful of greenies - so named, according to baseball lore, because the amphetamine Dexedrine came in green tablets - into a pot of coffee to kick it up a notch.




Jim Bouton, in Ball Four, his book chronicling the 1969 season of the Seattle Pilots, also disclosed how rampant amphetamine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine) or "greenies" usage was among players.

acredsfan
07-28-2009, 01:57 AM
And I do.I know you do, but I also would say you are probably in the minority. Do you feel that 50 games is appropriate for someone proven to have used PEDs?

westofyou
07-28-2009, 01:57 AM
It is very well documented that Greenies were extremely common in baseball for decades. They were not banned by MLB until 2005.

Yes, I well aware of that. I've spent some time studying the game.

My point is whitewashing Roses gambling incident with the use of steroids is a simplistic look at what he did and a home town attempt to cleanse his crime with other incidents that have nothing to do with his transgressions, and it happens every year on this board since Jim Grey stuck the mic in Pete's face that night.

It's a hilarious attempt each and every time that is more an exercise in soapbox dragging and less in fessing up to what the man did ... as manager of the Reds.

westofyou
07-28-2009, 01:58 AM
I know you do, but I also would say you are probably in the minority. Do you feel that 50 games is appropriate for someone proven to have used PEDs?

I don't think that question is germane to the Rose discussion, it's like asking me if I think water is a nice refreshment while I chew on a piece of cheese.

It has little connection ot the real subject.. in this case Pete Rose.

acredsfan
07-28-2009, 02:02 AM
I don't think that question is germane to the Rose discussion, it's like asking me if I think water is a nice refreshment while I chew on a piece of cheese.

It has little connection ot the real subject.. in this case Pete Rose.It does when quantifying how much worse PED use is compared to gambling. You brought up Greenies before so I'm just wondering. I honestly respect your opinion and I also want to understand where you are coming from.

acredsfan
07-28-2009, 02:08 AM
I don't think that question is germane to the Rose discussion, it's like asking me if I think water is a nice refreshment while I chew on a piece of cheese.

It has little connection ot the real subject.. in this case Pete Rose.I also would inquire whether you think it should matter who he bet against or if he actually made decisions to effect the outcome of the game? Do intentions matter or just the act? I don't think you're wrong about it being worse than steroids if he actually fixed games, I just don't agree with how much worse. I really personally don't care if he's ever let back in the game to coach as long as his accomplishments as a player are honored in the HOF. I know I would like to see him spread his knowledge, but it's not about that. Pete has made some stupid choices, so I don't feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for baseball for ignoring what he contributed as a player.

Brutus
07-28-2009, 02:10 AM
Until/unless it's shown that Pete Rose ever bet on the Reds to lose, he probably did not jeopardize the integrity of the game. That's not letting him off the hook for what he did, but unless there's any evidence he 'threw' games, I think he served his punishment and it's time to let him off the hook.

I do think gambling on your own games is worse than steroids, but since there's no one claiming he intended to try and lose, he did not do something that shouldn't be forgiven.

Had he thrown games (or bet against the Reds, giving the appearance he did), I without question would not condone his reinstatement. But since that's not the case, he's done his time.

westofyou
07-28-2009, 02:12 AM
It does when quantifying how much worse PED use is compared to gambling. You brought up Greenies before so I'm just wondering. I honestly respect your opinion and I also want to understand where you are coming from.

I only brought up greenies because Savafan try to frame steroids as being the worst thing to happen in the game in 146 years. A statement that is pretty unsubstantiated and one made solely to make Pete Rose (who himself hung out with guys that sold steroids illegally but I digress) look good. As for suspensions, this is the first round of suspensions IIRC so I'm more apt to see how it plays out in a couple of years before I make decision on the lenght.

Now gambling effected the game for the first 50 years and the first time it caved BIG TIME in the Reds were the beneficiary, a blight on their 1st championship, the 2nd time it stained their greatest home town hero.

Ouch.

WMR
07-28-2009, 02:20 AM
Do you think Rose should be put into the hall after he is dead, WOY, or not at all?

acredsfan
07-28-2009, 02:22 AM
I only brought up greenies because Savafan try to frame steroids as being the worst thing to happen in the game in 146 years. A statement that is pretty unsubstantiated and one made solely to make Pete Rose (who himself hung out with guys that sold steroids illegally but I digress) look good. As for suspensions, this is the first round of suspensions IIRC so I'm more apt to see how it plays out in a couple of years before I make decision on the lenght.

Now gambling effected the game for the first 50 years and the first time it caved BIG TIME in the Reds were the beneficiary, a blight on their 1st championship, the 2nd time it stained their greatest home town hero.

Ouch.I get what you are saying, and using steroids to make Pete look good is not a valid argument, but using steroids as a comparison and how it is handled is valid. What Pete did can never be forgotten, but if steroid users can be forgiven, then logic follows that 'why can't Pete?' It's a matter of judgement which is why people disagree. I still feel like using PEDs makes the games' outcomes trivial, and cheapens the game. So my thought is why forgive one and not the other. The answer is some people can't forgive a man like Pete. Others still feel like gambling is a cardinal sin of baseball. I feel like Gambling is bad, but not worth banning a player for life reguardless of how great he was.

mbgrayson
07-28-2009, 02:36 AM
Yes, I well aware of that. I've spent some time studying the game.

My point is whitewashing Roses gambling incident with the use of steroids is a simplistic look at what he did and a home town attempt to cleanse his crime with other incidents that have nothing to do with his transgressions, and it happens every year on this board since Jim Grey stuck the mic in Pete's face that night.

It's a hilarious attempt each and every time that is more an exercise in soapbox dragging and less in fessing up to what the man did ... as manager of the Reds.

As for myself, I have no trouble admitting exactly what Rose did: he bet on the Reds(to win) in games where he was their manager. That was wrong, and violated MLB rules that are well known to all, and as a consequence, Rose has lost his job, been banned from the game he loved for 20 years, and that has cost him millions of dollars he would have earned as a coach or manager.

Rose is also a convicted tax cheat, adulterer(sp?), and a greenie user. And more, I'm sure. I got over having him as my boyhood baseball hero about 30 years ago when he left the Reds for more money in Philadelphia.

Yet, I will still take Pete in the HOF, seven days a week, and twice on Sunday. He is in the top of numerous career hitting categories, won batting titles, ROY, an MVP, three world series rings (two for the Reds), and has career stats that make many other Hall of Famers pale in comparison. Did you know Rose batted .321 in 300 post-season plate appearances? That he played in 17 All Star games, and started at 5 different positions? That he won the Gehrig Award, the Hutch Award, and the Clemente Award? See Baseball Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rosepe01.shtml). Most of all, I was lucky enough to see him play. The man hustled, and wanted to win, more than any player I have seen. Relentless.

I also am ok with Rose not ever having a job in MLB again. But this is a lot more than just a Cincinnati thing. The HOF has never been about character. If it is, why is Ty cobb in there? He was actually accused of fixing baseball games, and was only 'acquitted' when he intimidated his accuser into not showing up for the hearing. Other Ty Cobb notes of interest, from Wikipedia:


Cobb climbed into the stands and attacked the handicapped Lueker, who due to an industrial accident had lost all of one hand and three fingers on his other hand. When onlookers shouted at Cobb to stop because the man had no hands, Cobb reportedly replied, "I don't care if he has no feet!"[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Cobb#cite_note-41)


Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being "uppity." When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him. The matter was later settled out of court.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Cobb#cite_note-NGECobb-15)


A personal achievement came in February, 1936, when the first Hall of Fame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame) election results were announced. Cobb had been named on 222 of 226 ballots, outdistancing Babe Ruth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth), Honus Wagner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honus_Wagner), Christy Mathewson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Mathewson) and Walter Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Johnson), the only others to earn the necessary 75% of votes to be elected in that first year. His 98.2 percentage stood as the record until Tom Seaver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Seaver) received 98.8% of the vote in 1992 (Nolan Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Ryan) and Cal Ripken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Ripken,_Jr.) have also surpassed Cobb, with 98.79% and 98.53% of the votes, respectively). Those incredible results show that although many people disliked him personally, they respected the way he played and what he accomplished.

That last quote summarizes how I feel about Pete Rose and the HOF. I really don't think it is right to keep Rose off the ballots. If voters don't pick him, so be it. But at least let him have his chance....

savafan
07-28-2009, 07:52 AM
So you think using PEDs deserves a lifetime ban? Or do you think 1st gambling offense should be a 50 game suspension?

I believe PEDs deserves a lifetime ban.

savafan
07-28-2009, 08:02 AM
The HOF has never been about character. If it is, why is Ty cobb in there?

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on a game in which they were a part of in 1919. There was documented proof. Dutch Leonard went to commissioner Landis with the proof in hopes of having the two banned from the game. Landis called the players in and did an investigation, and concluded that what they did, while morally wrong, did not violate the rules of baseball. There was no rule back then forbidding players from betting on a game, only throwing a game or conspiring to throw a game, of which Landis could find no proof that Cobb or Speaker had done.

15fan
07-28-2009, 08:07 AM
Was sitting in a doc's waiting room yesterday. Picked up the 8/3/09 issue of Time. Interesting article about whether or not Scooter Libby should have received a presidential pardon before GWB left office.

One of the things the article discussed was that there usually is an admission of guilt and a subsequent show of remorse before a pardon is considered / granted.

Drawing a parallel with Pete, he for years fought tooth & nail the body of evidence against him. He set up shop in Cooperstown year after year whoring himself out during HOF induction weekend. He constantly cajoled to be let back in.

He broke one of the rules that at the very core protects the sanctity of the game. He broke it knowingly and repeatedly. Then he was a jerk about it for almost 20 years.

No pardon, IMO.

savafan
07-28-2009, 08:28 AM
Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on a game in which they were a part of in 1919. There was documented proof. Dutch Leonard went to commissioner Landis with the proof in hopes of having the two banned from the game. Landis called the players in and did an investigation, and concluded that what they did, while morally wrong, did not violate the rules of baseball. There was no rule back then forbidding players from betting on a game, only throwing a game or conspiring to throw a game, of which Landis could find no proof that Cobb or Speaker had done.

Let me add to this that the players bet amongst themselves. Baseball did have a rule against consorting with gamblers. Was there a fix? Probably, but not enough evidence to prove it.

RedsBaron
07-28-2009, 08:35 AM
I thought I heard that because he's been retired for more than 15 years, the veterans committee would get to choose, rather than the writers.

Assuming I'm right (always a risk thing to do), until Bob Feller and his ilk kick it, there will be plenty of resistance from the veterans committee as well.

My opinion: Rose's sins were serious, but a 20 year ban is also a serious punishment. I'm fine with a probationary reinstatement. As a Reds fan, I don't want him managing. If his old radio show was any indicator, I don't think I'd like him to announce either.

To me, Selig's decision is a "no-brainer." If he reinstates Rose in a limited fashion, and makes him eligible for induction into the Hall of Fame, it makes Bud appear to be compassionate (rather than a crank like Fay Vincent), and at the same time largely removes Pete Rose as a recurring issue that he has to deal with.
At age 68, and with his past, it is extremely unlikely that any major league team, even the Reds, would ever hire Rose to manage or be in a position to influence the outcome of games, but Selig can always still prohibit Rose from managing. While quite a number of fans still want Rose to make the HOF, there is much less interest and support for Rose ever again managing.
The great thing for Selig is that deciding to restore Rose's HOF eligibity does not itself put Rose in the HOF. As Chili noted, even though Rose never appeared on the writers ballot, since it has been more than 20 years since he retired I have read the decision as to whether or not to induct Rose would now go to the veterans committee. Yes, Rose will have his support from guys such as Schmidt, Perez, probably Morgan and reportedly Aaron, but there are also a number of HOF members who have voiced opposition to Rose. At this point I very much doubt that Rose could get the necessary 75% vote. No matter for Selig though--THAT decision would be out of his hands.

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 09:41 AM
Interesting thought. A thought in which I find actually helping Pete out because PEDs tarnished an entire era, and not just for one player or one team but for baseball as a whole. Why should steroid users be pardoned and Pete not? Prove Pete bet against the Reds and actually made decisions on purpose that lost games and I'll have a harder time forgiving him. Players didn't have a choice of effecting games or not by using PEDs. If they chose to use, they effected the games they played in. Barry Bonds won games by cheating. He could carry a team and change the outcome of a game as he shot up steroids. Same with Sosa. I know the baseball purists call betting on baseball a cardinal sin, but wouldn't it have been better served if baseball suspended Rose for a definite period of time, made him get help, and tell him that if he screwed up again the consequences would be permanent?

I don't buy into betting being the worst thing a player can do. Throwing a game to win a bet is the worst thing a player or manager can do, and it isn't proven he did that. Pete hated losing, the question is which he hated to lose the most, his games which paid him the money to gamble, or the bets he placed. My guess is he felt he should win every night, so I'm not quick to accuse him of throwing games.


Interesting take. So you are differentiating between betting to win and betting to lose. OK. But you'd agree that all PEDs users are doing it to win, correct? Why the difference? Both are cheating in order to win games.

Do you think the rule posted in every clubhouse should be amended to only include betting to lose?

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 09:45 AM
I believe PEDs deserves a lifetime ban.

OK, fair enough. You feel more strongly about PEDs than most of us but I respect that. I don't think guys like Pettitte should be banned for life but that's where we differ

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 09:52 AM
Until/unless it's shown that Pete Rose ever bet on the Reds to lose, he probably did not jeopardize the integrity of the game. That's not letting him off the hook for what he did, but unless there's any evidence he 'threw' games, I think he served his punishment and it's time to let him off the hook.

I do think gambling on your own games is worse than steroids, but since there's no one claiming he intended to try and lose, he did not do something that shouldn't be forgiven.

Had he thrown games (or bet against the Reds, giving the appearance he did), I without question would not condone his reinstatement. But since that's not the case, he's done his time.


You're not the first one to look at it this way so I'll address it.

The reason MLB doesn't differentiate between betting to win and betting to lose is because in a sense Pete is betting on his team to lose on days he's not placing a bet on them. For instance he may be inclined to use his closer for 2 or 3 innings in a game he has a lot of money riding or he may rest a few stars on the days he's not betting. Either way it messes with the integrity of the game. I agree that baseball does not differentiate between betting to win or betting to lose. And Pete knew the rule didn't differentiate. He knew betting on your team, even to win, meant a lifetime ban.

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 09:57 AM
Others still feel like gambling is a cardinal sin of baseball. I feel like Gambling is bad, but not worth banning a player for life reguardless of how great he was.

Wow, so you don't like the rule that gambling on your own team means a lifetime suspension. You'd have very little support if you were to propose softening that punishment. That's a very minority view you have, one I've rarely read in all the years of this debate.

RANDY IN INDY
07-28-2009, 09:58 AM
I have no problem with Rose being in the Hall of Fame, period.

cumberlandreds
07-28-2009, 10:26 AM
I have no problem with Rose being in the Hall of Fame, period.

I don't either as long as they put it on his plaque that he was banned from baseball for a time for betting on the game.

westofyou
07-28-2009, 11:01 AM
Do you think Rose should be put into the hall after he is dead, WOY, or not at all?

I don't care about the HOF, they make their decision on Rose based on MLB and that's their problem (and Pete's) I care about the call to have Pete be part of the game, and the wagon dragging behind that subject that say, gambling isn't as bad as steroids, he only bet on his team ect...

As for Pete he was my favorite player in the mid 70's

As for other players who bet I know more about that then most on this board

As for steroids I see a lot of crappy players have taken them too including Hal Morris, and I see no venom pointed at them (Hal Morris?)like I see at the guys who were great and took them, seems kinda funny to me.

Johnny Footstool
07-28-2009, 11:09 AM
Was sitting in a doc's waiting room yesterday. Picked up the 8/3/09 issue of Time. Interesting article about whether or not Scooter Libby should have received a presidential pardon before GWB left office.

One of the things the article discussed was that there usually is an admission of guilt and a subsequent show of remorse before a pardon is considered / granted.

Drawing a parallel with Pete, he for years fought tooth & nail the body of evidence against him. He set up shop in Cooperstown year after year whoring himself out during HOF induction weekend. He constantly cajoled to be let back in.

He broke one of the rules that at the very core protects the sanctity of the game. He broke it knowingly and repeatedly. Then he was a jerk about it for almost 20 years.

No pardon, IMO.

Putting up a fascade of remorse shouldn't matter. I don't really care to see Pete shedding crocodile tears at some press conference, claiming he "really has learned his lesson."

westofyou
07-28-2009, 11:11 AM
Let me add to this that the players bet amongst themselves. Baseball did have a rule against consorting with gamblers. Was there a fix? Probably, but not enough evidence to prove it.

No, baseball had a policy against betting period, but keep trying to paint that fence with whitewash.

Point, in 1906 Reds owner was in HUGE fight with the Pirates owner, it lasted years, prior to the season he bet over 5K that the Pirates would NOT win the NL championship, in the middle of the year he gave away the Reds CF to the Giants in a trade that all of baseball scratched their head over, in short he could be construed as trying to make sure he didn't lose that bet (he did because the Cubs ruled that year)

Pre Landis base is full of incidents like that, questionable and sketchy

macro
07-28-2009, 11:29 AM
I don't care about the HOF, they make their decision on Rose based on MLB and that's their problem (and Pete's)...

Failure to understand that the HOF is in no way obligated to follow MLB's lead on this issue runs rampant. Last night on the 6:00pm news in Louisville, one of the news anchors followed up the sports report with a comment about Selig "letting Pete into the Hall..."

Is anyone lobbying the HOF to change its rules back to the way they were before Pete was banned? I think they're the ones who should give in, not MLB.

westofyou
07-28-2009, 11:35 AM
Failure to understand that the HOF is in no way obligated to follow MLB's lead on this issue runs rampant. Last night on the 6:00pm news in Louisville, one of the news anchors followed up the sports report with a comment about Selig "letting Pete into the Hall..."

Is anyone lobbying the HOF to change its rules back to the way they were before Pete was banned? I think they're the ones who should give in, not MLB.
Yep, the HOF is guilty of gerrymandering their rules, and I guess it's their right too. That said they are a museum, not a repository that hands out pardons for MLB level crimes. My take is if a player does something that is construed as a baseball crime then MLB should deal with it. If a player is barred from he HOF then it's that venue that has to deal with it.

flyer85
07-28-2009, 11:40 AM
Is anyone lobbying the HOF to change its rules back to the way they were before Pete was banned? I think they're the ones who should give in, not MLB.
Fay Vincent orchestrated the rule change to ensure Rose would be kept out. He wasn't willing to leave it up to the baseball writers (as had been done previously). Shoeless Joe was eligible to be put in the HOF until the rule change.

Personally I think the HOF should change the rules back and I really don't care whether Pete gets in or not. I don't think he will at this point because over the years all he has done is hurt his case.

The PED users will face the writers ... and thats the way it should be.

TRF
07-28-2009, 11:42 AM
why do i care...

sigh.

Ok, following the logic that Rose never bet against the Reds, how often did he do the following:


Bet huge on the Reds to win.
Bet small on the Reds to win.
Not bet on the Reds at all.


A huge bet means Rose had more than the normal vested interest in winning. A huge bet followed by a small or no bet means he had no faith in his team winning. A huge bet might mean he pitches a reliever that needed the day off. He may have affected the outcomes of losses because he didn't properly manage his team for the season. It's possible a few of those 2nd place finishes could have been 1st place finishes with a manager more concerned about the season and less concerned with his bookie.

flyer85
07-28-2009, 11:48 AM
He may have affected the outcomes of losses because he didn't properly manage his team for the season. It's possible a few of those 2nd place finishes could have been 1st place finishes with a manager more concerned about the season and less concerned with his bookie.
and in the end we will never know if he managed the team differently because of a wager(or lack thereof) on a game. Did he let a starter go longer, use his closer on a 3rd or 4th day in a row, etc. And the real issue is that Pete created this uncertainty and the stench that comes with it.

TRF
07-28-2009, 11:58 AM
and in the end we will never know if he managed the team differently because of a wager(or lack thereof) on a game. Did he let a starter go longer, use his closer on a 3rd or 4th day in a row, etc. And the real issue is that Pete created this uncertainty and the stench that comes with it.

Exactly.

The part of me that remembers Rose when I was a kid wants to see him in the game. The part of me that sees him now prefers he remain away from it.

Cyclone792
07-28-2009, 12:34 PM
Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on a game in which they were a part of in 1919. There was documented proof. Dutch Leonard went to commissioner Landis with the proof in hopes of having the two banned from the game. Landis called the players in and did an investigation, and concluded that what they did, while morally wrong, did not violate the rules of baseball. There was no rule back then forbidding players from betting on a game, only throwing a game or conspiring to throw a game, of which Landis could find no proof that Cobb or Speaker had done.

1) The evidence against Cobb, Speaker and Wood is shaky, and an actual judgement on whether they actually bet on that game in question cannot be made given what is known.

2) The Cobb/Speaker Affair was just as much a power struggle between Landis and Ban Johnson as it was about Cobb, Speaker or Wood. In the end, not only were Cobb and Speaker exonerated, but they were granted free agency during a time in which free agency did not exist.

3) Cobb claimed to have had significant dirt on MLB at the time, including proof of ownership corruption, falsifying gate receipts, etc. that he threatened to use against MLB if they went after him and Speaker. Frankly, given what was going on during this era, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. Cobb had significant wealth built up by that time (he was a savvy investor), and he had the financial backing to go after MLB if he truly wanted to. The owners and executives knew this.

savafan
07-28-2009, 01:18 PM
1) The evidence against Cobb, Speaker and Wood is shaky, and an actual judgement on whether they actually bet on that game in question cannot be made given what is known.

2) The Cobb/Speaker Affair was just as much a power struggle between Landis and Ban Johnson as it was about Cobb, Speaker or Wood. In the end, not only were Cobb and Speaker exonerated, but they were granted free agency during a time in which free agency did not exist.

3) Cobb claimed to have had significant dirt on MLB at the time, including proof of ownership corruption, falsifying gate receipts, etc. that he threatened to use against MLB if they went after him and Speaker. Frankly, given what was going on during this era, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. Cobb had significant wealth built up by that time (he was a savvy investor), and he had the financial backing to go after MLB if he truly wanted to. The owners and executives knew this.

Interesting. Are there any books on this subject, or the corruption in the game during that era?

TRF
07-28-2009, 01:25 PM
Interesting. Are there any books on this subject, or the corruption in the game during that era?

A lot of this is in the Cobb Biography.

Brutus
07-28-2009, 01:50 PM
You're not the first one to look at it this way so I'll address it.

The reason MLB doesn't differentiate between betting to win and betting to lose is because in a sense Pete is betting on his team to lose on days he's not placing a bet on them. For instance he may be inclined to use his closer for 2 or 3 innings in a game he has a lot of money riding or he may rest a few stars on the days he's not betting. Either way it messes with the integrity of the game. I agree that baseball does not differentiate between betting to win or betting to lose. And Pete knew the rule didn't differentiate. He knew betting on your team, even to win, meant a lifetime ban.

I am well aware of the rationale behind it, but it does not make much sense from a practical standpoint.

If he's not betting on games, he does not have motivation to alter the approach of his team. Why manage any less than his ability if it's not financially motivated? I have heard this reason many times and it does not really make much sense.

Still, as I said, he got punished and he should have been punished. But it's been 20 years. Time to move on. And when I say that, understand I think he's ruined his chance to ever manage again. I do not think I'd grant that privilege. But allow him back in baseball in certain capacities and let him into the HOF.

westofyou
07-28-2009, 02:39 PM
I am well aware of the rationale behind it, but it does not make much sense from a practical standpoint.

If he's not betting on games, he does not have motivation to alter the approach of his team. Why manage any less than his ability if it's not financially motivated? I have heard this reason many times and it does not really make much sense.

Still, as I said, he got punished and he should have been punished. But it's been 20 years. Time to move on. And when I say that, understand I think he's ruined his chance to ever manage again. I do not think I'd grant that privilege. But allow him back in baseball in certain capacities and let him into the HOF.

Of course for 75% of those 20 years he denied that he did it and in all those years he made many folks who stood behind him look foolish.

Maybe Pete should move on?

Brutus
07-28-2009, 02:47 PM
Of course for 75% of those 20 years he denied that he did it and in all those years he made many folks who stood behind him look foolish.

Maybe Pete should move on?

Who cares if he denied it? He still served his punishment regardless of how up-front he is. It makes no difference to me if someone denies something or shows fake remorse. They're all the same to me.

I was too young to watch Pete Rose play, so I can't say I have any loyalty to him or because of the team he played for. But I know I don't have some self-righteous stand against folks because they deny something. I really could not care less about that. I simply believe in second chances for most people. This is no different. He served his punishment, with or without the remorse. Time to give him his second chance.

westofyou
07-28-2009, 02:56 PM
Who cares if he denied it? He still served his punishment regardless of how up-front he is. It makes no difference to me if someone denies something or shows fake remorse. They're all the same to me.

I was too young to watch Pete Rose play, so I can't say I have any loyalty to him or because of the team he played for. But I know I don't have some self-righteous stand against folks because they deny something. I really could not care less about that. I simply believe in second chances for most people. This is no different. He served his punishment, with or without the remorse. Time to give him his second chance.

I care, and if that makes me self rightous then so be it, in fact it's laughable that grenade even gets thrown at soemone wanting teh game to stay pure from gambling.

The man had many chances to come clean, seond chances, third chances ect.. he evn wrote a book denying everything, he made cash off his denial.

No way should he be involved in MLB, mostly because time doesn't equal punsihment, this wasn't a time out in the corner, he was banned from the game for breaking the 1st commandment. I don't care if he's Pete Rose or Wayne Comer, he knew the penalty, he's not an idiot.

IowaRed
07-28-2009, 03:05 PM
This is really very easy for me (with an admitted Reds fan bias) The HOF is a museum honoring the great players, moments, teams in history (among other things) Pete Rose was a great player, was a part of historic moments, and on arguably the best team in the history of baseball. His accomplishments on the field in baseball warrant him being eligible to be honored at a baseball museum. Whether he is voted in or not is a different issue

TRF
07-28-2009, 03:18 PM
Pete is honored plenty in the museum. He's not in the HOF, but his presence is felt in that building.

That's enough for me.

Johnny Footstool
07-28-2009, 03:48 PM
and in the end we will never know if he managed the team differently because of a wager(or lack thereof) on a game. Did he let a starter go longer, use his closer on a 3rd or 4th day in a row, etc. And the real issue is that Pete created this uncertainty and the stench that comes with it.

For what it's worth, the Rose-managed teams of the late-80's usually beat their pythag record.

TRF
07-28-2009, 03:58 PM
For what it's worth, the Rose-managed teams of the late-80's usually beat their pythag record.

Possibly because they won some games they ordinarily shouldn't have, and were blown out in games that might have been closer had he managed the year instead of his bets.

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 04:11 PM
Who cares if he denied it? He still served his punishment regardless of how up-front he is. It makes no difference to me if someone denies something or shows fake remorse. They're all the same to me.




I don't understand your stance. If he served his punishment then why can't he manage again?

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 04:15 PM
For what it's worth, the Rose-managed teams of the late-80's usually beat their pythag record.

I think Pete Rose was a very underrated manager. He led this team to 4 straight 2nd place finishes with very little starting pitching. Just look back at those rosters.

His main weakness was a penchant for playing older players but he did improve in that area. For instance he played Eddie Milner way too much when he had Eric Davis on his bench. He also played himself at 1B instead of Nick Esasky. But overall I think he was one of our better managers. Think how good he could have been if he hadn't been distracted by gambling?

Yachtzee
07-28-2009, 05:43 PM
I think the only relevant question when it comes to Pete Rose's reinstatement is whether he has followed the main directive given to him by Bart Giamatti? Has Pete Rose reconfigured his life?

To answer that question, you'll probably have to look to see where Pete is more likely to be today - 1) teaching the game to kids on some sandlot and attending gambler's anonymous meetings; or 2) sitting in a Vegas casino, hawking his autograph between poker hands.

Johnny Footstool
07-28-2009, 05:55 PM
Possibly because they won some games they ordinarily shouldn't have, and were blown out in games that might have been closer had he managed the year instead of his bets.

If he wasn't managing to win, or if he was pushing the team too hard and making costly mistakes, it seems like those things would show up in 1-run games, which tend to magnify bad decisions. However, Rose's Reds tended to have excellent records in 1-run games, thanks to a very strong bullpen.

GAC
07-28-2009, 05:59 PM
My point is whitewashing Roses gambling incident with the use of steroids is a simplistic look at what he did

I wholeheartedly agree. After all this came to light on Rose I said to myself.... "It almost makes sense (sadly). That same drive and ego that drove his competiveness on that field, and in the clubhouse, to win, win, win, and was the core of his personality and success...was also his downfall.

He didn't think anyone could touch him.


Jim Grey stuck the mic in Pete's face that night.

In that particular situation, I'd have punched Grey right in the mouth and took my chances.

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 06:05 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. After all this came to light on Rose I said to myself.... "It almost makes sense (sadly). That same drive and ego that drove his competiveness on that field, and in the clubhouse, to win, win, win, and was the core of his personality and success...was also his downfall.

He didn't think anyone could touch him.


I agree

Ditto for Roger Clemens where we're seeing a similar situation unfold

Brutus
07-28-2009, 06:16 PM
I don't understand your stance. If he served his punishment then why can't he manage again?

Pretty simple to figure out.

Someone drives drunk and injures someone, we usually have them serve a sentence and when they're done, they're given back their life. But does that mean we hand them over keys to a vehicle and let them drive? Not usually.

Someone takes advantage of a teenager because they're in position of authority, we sentence them to some sort of punishment and then they're again free to live their life. But does that mean we give them a job teaching kids of that age? Again, not typically.

Pharmacists that have drug addictions might abuse their position. They get caught and we punish them. Does that mean we let them back to writing prescriptions? Most often not.

This is no different.

Pete served his time. He was punished. Now I say it's time to let him back in baseball in most capacities. But my only stipulation is that I would not let him manage. Just like any of the above scenarios, he had a vice that got him into trouble. He paid his debt to the game, much like these folks pay their debts to society, but we allow them back while trying to keep them from the temptations that got them into trouble. That's not really a strange concept.

savafan
07-28-2009, 07:20 PM
Pete is honored plenty in the museum. He's not in the HOF, but his presence is felt in that building.

That's enough for me.

But it's not enough for my father or my grandmother, lifelong Reds fans who followed Rose's whole career, and many others like them. My grandmother is deeply passionate about the Reds, perhaps the most passionate person I know when it comes to this baseball team, and her desire to see Rose honored for his accomplishments as a player is what drives me on this subject. See, I kind of feel like she, and the many fans of her and my father's era, are also being punished here by perhaps having the chance to celebrate Pete Rose the baseball player while they are still alive, as well as while he is still with us.

I would love to be able to take my grandmother down to GABP to see Rose stand on the field and have #14 retired. Sometimes, I think the thought of seeing that happen is what's keeping her going.

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 07:23 PM
Pretty simple to figure out.

Someone drives drunk and injures someone, we usually have them serve a sentence and when they're done, they're given back their life. But does that mean we hand them over keys to a vehicle and let them drive? Not usually.

Someone takes advantage of a teenager because they're in position of authority, we sentence them to some sort of punishment and then they're again free to live their life. But does that mean we give them a job teaching kids of that age? Again, not typically.

Pharmacists that have drug addictions might abuse their position. They get caught and we punish them. Does that mean we let them back to writing prescriptions? Most often not.

This is no different.

Pete served his time. He was punished. Now I say it's time to let him back in baseball in most capacities. But my only stipulation is that I would not let him manage. Just like any of the above scenarios, he had a vice that got him into trouble. He paid his debt to the game, much like these folks pay their debts to society, but we allow them back while trying to keep them from the temptations that got them into trouble. That's not really a strange concept.


You were doing pretty well 'till you got to the Pharmacist stuff. Pharmacists don't write Rx's. Substitute Doctor for Pharmacist and you've made a good point; one I agree with.

RFS62
07-28-2009, 08:54 PM
Pete is honored plenty in the museum. He's not in the HOF, but his presence is felt in that building.

That's enough for me.


Me too. He's all over the place, as he should be.

But none of the arguments that what he did isn't as bad as PED users hold any water to me. Totally irrelevant.

Pete always thought he was bigger than the game, bigger than everything. He did whatever he wanted in both his personal life and his baseball career. And he was indeed larger than life.

One of the greatest players of all time, no doubt. I loved him as a kid.

I don't have much respect for him as a man, however, after all the things he's done off the field.

It occurs to me that Pete has no remorse about betting on baseball. I believe he has tremendous remorse over being caught.

RedsBaron
07-28-2009, 09:03 PM
You were doing pretty well 'till you got to the Pharmacist stuff. Pharmacists don't write Rx's. Substitute Doctor for Pharmacist and you've made a good point; one I agree with.

Pharmacists have been implicated in some situations where doctors have allegedly improperly prescribed medications such as Oxyocodone and Hyrdocodone.

RedsBaron
07-28-2009, 09:05 PM
It occurs to me that Pete has no remorse about betting on baseball. I believe he has tremendous remorse over being caught.

I believe that quite a few of the steroid users have no remorse over breaking federal law and using steroids. They have tremendous remorse over being caught. In that regard I believe they do have much in common with Rose.

RFS62
07-28-2009, 10:23 PM
I believe that quite a few of the steroid users have no remorse over breaking federal law and using steroids. They have tremendous remorse over being caught. In that regard I believe they do have much in common with Rose.


Yeah, I agree with that.

I just don't get the connection. If betting on baseball among players and managers was as widespread as PED use, pro baseball would have been destroyed long ago.

And I know that doesn't make ped use any more acceptable.

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 11:11 PM
Pharmacists have been implicated in some situations where doctors have allegedly improperly prescribed medications such as Oxyocodone and Hyrdocodone.

Implicated can mean a lot of things. Pharmacists cannot legally write any prescriptions so I don't understand your point.

Sea Ray
07-28-2009, 11:14 PM
I just don't get the connection.


I don't either. If you feel like Savafan does then fine; lobby for a lifetime ban for PED users but what does that have to do with Pete?

RedsBaron
07-29-2009, 08:03 AM
Implicated can mean a lot of things. Pharmacists cannot legally write any prescriptions so I don't understand your point.

I misread Brutus's post. I now see where he referred to pharmacists writing prescriptions. No, they can't do that. I have had some involvement (not as the accused ) in matters where there were allegations that pharmacists were plotting with physicians to illegally write and dispense controlled substances and I immediately thought of those cases. The pharmacists were accused of the supposed illegal dispensing.

Roy Tucker
07-29-2009, 09:28 AM
With the life Rose has led post-banishment, I see no trace of the "reconfiguring his life" that Giamatti referred to as a precursor to any form of reinstatement.

Like RFS said, I respect him as a player but not as a man. He never truly owned up to the massive error in judgement he made. If he was let back into the game, he'd still be just as prone to betting on MLB games as he was back in 1986. There is no way I'd let him close to any MLB playing field.

Having said that, I think he was a great player and a fierce competitor and worthy of consideration for the HoF. I think its BS that any player is *banned* from the HoF. If the BBWA writers choose not to vote someone in because they were gamblers, drug addicts, steroid users, racists, or kicked their dogs, that's their choice. But let them make that choice.

RedsBaron
07-29-2009, 10:21 AM
I sometimes think that Rose is more interested in being reinstated to MLB than he is in being inducted into the Hall of Fame whereas most fans are more interested in debating whether or not he should be let into the HOF than they are in seeing him again wear a major league uniform. Rose is 68 years old; if he lives to be age 98, I expect he will still believe that if only he was reinstated some major league team would immediately hire him as a manager.
Regardlees of what Selig does, I just cannot see any team hiring Rose to manage, nor should he ever manage again or be placed in a position where he could affect the outcome of a game. It would be like placing a glass of whiskey in front of an alcoholic.

savafan
07-29-2009, 09:11 PM
The standing ovation that Rose just got at GABP tells me all I need to know about the impact his return to the game would have in Cincinnati.

PuffyPig
07-29-2009, 10:23 PM
He may get pardoned, but I doubt he would get voted in anytime soon. But I could be wrong.

A few years back, Rose was in Calgary and spoke at a local fundraiser dinner. He refused to sign my son's baseball card of Rose. I've disliked him since. He came across like a pompous a$$. He really played up being a victim, the whole "my prison without bars".

I have trouble even tolerating him.

westofyou
07-29-2009, 10:24 PM
The standing ovation that Rose just got at GABP tells me all I need to know about the impact his return to the game would have in Cincinnati.

No duh, and Barry Bonds was cheered nightly in SF

To still lobby for Rose to wear a uniform and perform duties as Reds employee is one of the main reasons Cincinnati is currently on par with the stegosaurus in a tar pit right now.

No forward looking happening at all, just constant glances in the rear view mirror at a fading memory.

KronoRed
07-29-2009, 10:30 PM
No forward looking happening at all, just constant glances in the rear view mirror at a fading memory.

That's the Reds, sometimes I think the city would have been better off losing the team and just building a shrine to the past instead of a stadium, yeah I know it was better but it's not coming back.

Unless someone has a DeLorean handy ;)

Brutus
07-29-2009, 10:37 PM
No duh, and Barry Bonds was cheered nightly in SF

To still lobby for Rose to wear a uniform and perform duties as Reds employee is one of the main reasons Cincinnati is currently on par with the stegosaurus in a tar pit right now.

No forward looking happening at all, just constant glances in the rear view mirror at a fading memory.

I hate the term "strawman" so I won't use it. But I don't see anyone in this thread (perhaps I missed it but I sure have not seen it) that has lobbied to have Rose don a uniform and function as a team employee in an official capacity. That's not to say a lot of people would not support or enjoy that, but that's not what people are asking for.

They're asking the ban to be lifted so A) he can be eligible for the Hall of Fame and B) be welcomed in an official capacity by the Reds or Major League Baseball as a sanctioned guest and take part in promotions or whatever else he could be useful for. Would I welcome him as a hitting coach? You bet I would. But that's also not what I'm asking.

I can say without question I'm not glancing in the rear view mirror because I never saw Rose play live or on television. I'm speaking from a baseball fan standpoint and from a view of giving humans a second chance.

Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame and he's paid his debt to the game and mere mortal men. What he did was wrong but not unforgivable. To not give him a second chance is suggesting that there are people that don't make mistakes in life.

westofyou
07-29-2009, 10:51 PM
I hate the term "strawman" so I won't use it. But I don't see anyone in this thread (perhaps I missed it but I sure have not seen it) that has lobbied to have Rose don a uniform and function as a team employee in an official capacity.
I know of 3 times in the first 4 pages.

Brutus
07-29-2009, 11:06 PM
I know of 3 times in the first 4 pages.

Well I apologize. I missed those references.

My stance is that I do not mind him being employed so long as he's not allowed to manage. Like I used as an example in another post, it's akin to not allowing a drunk driver to have his license back or giving a teacher or other person in position of authority to have taken advantage of a teenager, a similar position. Just don't put him in a position to give into temptation for his vice.

Otherwise, I'm all for Pete Rose being involved in baseball.

RFS62
07-29-2009, 11:07 PM
I sometimes think that Rose is more interested in being reinstated to MLB than he is in being inducted into the Hall of Fame whereas most fans are more interested in debating whether or not he should be let into the HOF than they are in seeing him again wear a major league uniform.


I've thought this for a long time as well. I think he desperately wanted back into baseball so he could earn a million plus a year managing.

Or maybe broadcasting, but I believe he wanted back in the dugout.

He lost a fortune in wages the past 20 years. It would have been interesting to see how good a manager he could have become if not for his gambling.

savafan
07-29-2009, 11:15 PM
Perhaps Rose should have just shot helpless dogs, then we'd be more apt to forgive him.

RFS62
07-29-2009, 11:19 PM
Perhaps Rose should have just shot helpless dogs, then we'd be more apt to forgive him.


Perhaps some would forgive him no matter what he did.

If you look around, many of us who can't get past his betrayal of baseball were his biggest fans when he was a player.

And yes, I said betrayal. Baseball didn't betray Pete, Pete betrayed baseball, the game that gave him everything.

savafan
07-29-2009, 11:26 PM
Baseball didn't betray Pete, Pete betrayed baseball, the game that gave him everything.

Except for a second chance, while at the same time giving multiple opportunities to such morally high characters as Dwight Gooden, Darryl Strawberry and Steve Howe...but then they obviously didn't tarnish the game the way Rose did, in the eyes of baseball. In the eyes of myself however, they made a mockery of the sport which continued time and time again to allow them to prove that they had turned their lives around.

I know some will say it's not the same thing, but trust me, at it's basest level, it really is.

PuffyPig
07-29-2009, 11:28 PM
Except for a second chance, while at the same time giving multiple opportunities to such morally high characters as Dwight Gooden, Darryl Strawberry and Steve Howe...but then they obviously didn't tarnish the game the way Rose did, in the eyes of baseball. In the eyes of myself however, they made a mockery of the sport which continued time and time again to allow them to prove that they had turned their lives around.

I know some will say it's not the same thing, but trust me, at it's basest level, it really is.

It's not the same thing.

Players are lectured from day one, if they bet on baseball, they will be banned for life.

Rose bet on baseball, and was banned for life.

Brutus
07-29-2009, 11:31 PM
It's not the same thing.

Players are lectured from day one, if they bet on baseball, they will be banned for life.

Rose bet on baseball, and was banned for life.

People are lectured not to do a lot of things. They do them anyway. And we give second chances.

I don't find that he was lectured on the subject to have any relevance. I'd expect he knew the consequences of his actions with or without the lecture. But that does not mean I feel he's any less inclined to be given a second chance than any other athlete.

savafan
07-29-2009, 11:32 PM
It's not the same thing.

Players are lectured from day one, if they bet on baseball, they will be banned for life.

Rose bet on baseball, and was banned for life.

It's just not that black and white anymore with the current state of the game, I'm sorry, but it's not.

http://thecabin.net/news/2009-07-28/mccollums-column-principles-behind-rose-ban-still-muddled


By David McCollum
Log Cabin Staff Writer

The issue has resurfaced (as if it ever really left?) about Pete Rose being reinstated to baseball.

There’s the purist argument and the realistic argument. For the first time, it seems realism is gaining an inside track.

Rose, the all-time hits leader in professional baseball, incurred a lifetime ban from Major League Baseball because he gambled on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds. That means he’s ineligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

One of the oldest mandates in professional baseball is no gambling on baseball. A sign that gambling on baseball is prohibited is posted in every major and minor league clubhouse. It’s a clear, longstanding rule.

That’s the purist argument and it has had merit for decades.

The principle behind the rule is to keep the perception of what happens in baseball is pure — that the wins, feats and records were established by legitimate means.

That gets more complicated in the light of recent revelations and ongoing discoveries that several of baseball’s icons and most prominent stars of the 1990s were using banned substances.

There’s the ongoing shadow that many of the records established during the 1990s, in particular, deserve an asterisk. The records were set because many stars were breaking the rules, bending the rules and becoming icons because they were juiced.

Every record or significant achievement that was set in the 1990s is questionable about whether it was set by legitimate means and within the boundaries of the rules concerning substances. You can’t examine such records with a sense of purity — that they were achieved without aid of some our most powerful pharmaceuticals.

Other than a few signs in a few places, what is the difference in what Pete Rose did and what so many stars who followed him did — and might still be doing? There’s no real difference in principle.

Babe Ruth, and many other stars of his days, indulged greatly in alcoholic beverages. The difference there is that alcohol takes away from so many of the skills necessary to play a sport. Steroids enhance those abilities. In the light of that, what Babe Ruth accomplished after so many nights on the town is extraordinary.

The bottom line is if we continue to recognize the feats of those tainted stars of the 1990s, not ban them from baseball and keep the records in the record book (which you have to do because it’s impossible to determine completely how many were not juiced), then there’s a stronger argument for lifting the ban on Rose.

The question is whether it’s a clean-living and morality hall of fame or one based on achievement, regardless of the personal lives and transgressions of those honored. Based on achievement, it hurts the legitimacy of the hall of fame to keep the all-time hits leader out of it, although Rose certainly has to pay any public relations consequences because of what he did. I don’t think anyone has ever questioned what Rose did on the field wasn’t legitimate. Few players in baseball history have played with such passion and gusto.

And while folks are pondering these things, they also might reconsider the case of “Shoeless Joe” Jackson, the poster child for the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, which first put gambling on baseball in the public light. Yet, Jackson’s teammates later stated “Shoeless Joe” was not in on the fix of the World Series and played as hard to win as anyone. Many maintain he was an innocent victim of a witchhunt to preserve the image of baseball.

To use to baseball terms as metaphors for the situations: The line in the batter’s box have been wiped out and the strike zone is obscured and inconsistent.

westofyou
07-29-2009, 11:58 PM
Red Herrings swimming all over this thread.

Speaking of steroids, should the Reds wipe out Pete Rose Jr's record? Maybe turn their back on Hal Morris... oh wait he's up for the Reds HOF!

savafan
07-30-2009, 12:20 AM
Red Herrings swimming all over this thread.

Speaking of steroids, should the Reds wipe out Pete Rose Jr's record? Maybe turn their back on Hal Morris... oh wait he's up for the Reds HOF!

Pete Rose Jr. has a record? I mean, aside from a prison record??? I don't think anyone would even notice if you wiped out Petey's 2 major league hits.

savafan
07-30-2009, 12:52 AM
Let's consider the allegation of ARod tipping pitches. As I read the rules, if guilty, he should be permanently ineligible, correct?

By the way, there is a precedent for lifetime bans being lifted in baseball. Ferguson Jenkins, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, George Steinbrenner, Dickie Kerr and Ray Fisher are some examples...there may be others that I'm forgetting.

savafan
11-11-2009, 08:57 PM
Last night on Studio 42 with Bob Costas on the MLB Network, Selig said Rose's case is still under review.

kaldaniels
11-11-2009, 09:20 PM
Let's consider the allegation of ARod tipping pitches. As I read the rules, if guilty, he should be permanently ineligible, correct?

By the way, there is a precedent for lifetime bans being lifted in baseball. Ferguson Jenkins, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, George Steinbrenner, Dickie Kerr and Ray Fisher are some examples...there may be others that I'm forgetting.

How/why should ARod be banned? What rule are you referring to? Just curious...is there a rule banning stealing signs and tipping pitches?

savafan
11-11-2009, 09:23 PM
How/why should ARod be banned? What rule are you referring to? Just curious...is there a rule banning stealing signs and tipping pitches?

Holy crap, you're asking me about something I wrote over 3 months ago...

Sea Ray
11-11-2009, 09:34 PM
Last night on Studio 42 with Bob Costas on the MLB Network, Selig said Rose's case is still under review.

Hasn't that been his answer for about ten years?

savafan
11-11-2009, 09:36 PM
Hasn't that been his answer for about ten years?

Yeah, it has. I'm not sure what's left to review. Make a decision. Reinstate Rose to be on the ballot, and not allow him to have a field job in MLB. What's so hard about that?

corkedbat
11-11-2009, 09:52 PM
Alright! About time we found Dusty's replacement!

:party::jump::party:

redsmetz
11-11-2009, 10:35 PM
It's not the same thing.

Players are lectured from day one, if they bet on baseball, they will be banned for life.

Rose bet on baseball, and was banned for life.

And yet, as the story goes, Rose was offered a short suspension to come clean and stupidly refused. So much for a ban for life. This story really is like the swallows of Capistrano or the buzzards in Hinckley, OH - it comes back every year.

Sea Ray
11-12-2009, 12:25 PM
Yeah, it has. I'm not sure what's left to review. Make a decision. Reinstate Rose to be on the ballot, and not allow him to have a field job in MLB. What's so hard about that?

I don't understand why he's leaving it open. He ought to rule one way or another. If the answer is no state when he can re-apply but leaving it open makes no sense.

Roy Tucker
11-12-2009, 12:54 PM
I don't understand why he's leaving it open. He ought to rule one way or another. If the answer is no state when he can re-apply but leaving it open makes no sense.


Bud is going for a world record for longest mulling.