PDA

View Full Version : Really Good Pete Rose Article



muddie
11-26-2011, 06:52 AM
From Yahoo Sports page David Brown does a really good Q&A plus with Pete. I don't see this posted elsewhere. If I'm missing seeing it please delete.

Can it really be 25 years since Pete Rose retired as a Major League Baseball player? The man called "Charlie Hustle" collected 4,256 career base hits for the Cincinnati Reds, Philadelphia Phillies and Montreal Expos, more than any other player in history.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Answer-Man-Pete-Rose-talks-Vegas-Sparky-Kool-;_ylt=AtVbzRxxQWog42dIjzZxJO05nYcB?urn=mlb-wp27466

MartyFan
11-26-2011, 07:38 AM
Understanding that Rose is 70 and has never really been known for his social graces, I laughed out loud as I cringed by this exchange!


DB: We know you like Elvis. What other kinds of music do you listen to?

PR: All kinds. Eminem's the best. Usher. Michael Jackson was a great entertainer. But Eminem who would have thought that the best rapper in the world would be white and the best golfer in the world would be black, in Tiger Woods?

alexad
11-26-2011, 01:51 PM
I think it was a great story. I have never met Pete but hope to some
Day. Pete Jr lives up the road from me in the next subdivision. Who knows maybe I will run into him soon.

Hap
11-27-2011, 11:42 AM
I loved Pete the player and Pete the manager as much as anyone else, and I also enjoyed most of this article. However, I feel as if I must play the role of Buzz Killington (http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Buzz_Killington) by disputing what I perceive to be some glaring inconsistencies.

Pete says he hasn't bet on baseball since 1987. Although I have no concrete proof that he is lying, I disagree completely with that statement. As a compulsive gambler, he is/was an addict, just the same as someone who is compulsively addicted to alcohol or drugs. I seriously doubt that he suddenly stopped. And I seriously doubt that he no longer feels the compulsive urge.

He says he never bet on baseball as a player. Again, I disagree completely. John Erardi states in the introduction to his book Wire To Wire (http://www.amazon.com/Wire---Wire-Reds-Sweet-Championship/dp/1578604656/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1322410571&sr=8-2) that he heard from Pete's own mother that Pete "lost a bundle" on the 1984 World Series (while he was still an active player). These two statements cannot both be true at the same time. Regarding Erardi and Rose, which one of these gentlemen has more credibility? The respected journalist, or the compulsive liar/gambling addict?

He says he doesn't go to casinos :dunno: And when he goes to baseball games, he pays for his ticket? I seriously doubt both of these statements also.

And at the end of the article, he becomes a Paterno supporter? Yikes.............

MartyFan
11-27-2011, 12:08 PM
I loved Pete the player and Pete the manager as much as anyone else, and I also enjoyed most of this article. However, I feel as if I must play the role of Buzz Killington (http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Buzz_Killington) by disputing what I perceive to be some glaring inconsistencies.

In a Pete Rose story???? :)


Pete says he hasn't bet on baseball since 1987. Although I have no concrete proof that he is lying, I disagree completely with that statement. As a compulsive gambler, he is/was an addict, just the same as someone who is compulsively addicted to alcohol or drugs. I seriously doubt that he suddenly stopped. And I seriously doubt that he no longer feels the compulsive urge.

No concrete proof? Any Proof?

I'll share a story.

My dad smoked from the time he was 14 years old. At the age of 68 he went to the docotr and the doctor said, "Jim, we need to get that spot tested on your gums...spot tested, not cancer but my dad stopped smoking that day. He is 84.

It is rare but it can happen when people can simply walk away from things...Hopefully Pete is one of them.




He says he never bet on baseball as a player. Again, I disagree completely. John Erardi states in the introduction to his book Wire To Wire (http://www.amazon.com/Wire---Wire-Reds-Sweet-Championship/dp/1578604656/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1322410571&sr=8-2) that he heard from Pete's own mother that Pete "lost a bundle" on the 1984 World Series (while he was still an active player). These two statements cannot both be true at the same time. Regarding Erardi and Rose, which one of these gentlemen has more credibility? The respected journalist, or the compulsive liar/gambling addict?

Agreed.


He says he doesn't go to casinos :dunno: And when he goes to baseball games, he pays for his ticket? I seriously doubt both of these statements also.

Why? Pete wasn't one to go to casino's before and he "according to the rules of his banishment" has to buy his own ticket...maybe he does, maybe someone buys him a ticket, maybe it is a staffer? I don't know either but I do know it isn't paid for by the commissioners office nor is it paid for using MLB funds.


And at the end of the article, he becomes a Paterno supporter? Yikes.............

Agreed...YIKES!

Also, he like O'whatshisname

For the record, I do not think Pete should be allowed back in MLB at any level and I think his induction to the HOF should only come after his passing.

that's just me.

westofyou
11-27-2011, 12:21 PM
Someday someone from Cincinnati will sign an autograph, "I'm sorry I bet on Pete Rose."

LvJ
11-27-2011, 01:12 PM
One of the best interviews with Pete that I've read!

George Anderson
11-27-2011, 01:37 PM
Pete always has given a good interview.

He always says something interesting.

savafan
11-27-2011, 01:45 PM
Rob Neyer adds his $0.02

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/11/27/2589261/pete-rose-bud-selig-suspension

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 02:05 PM
Never let him in. Ever.

gilpdawg
11-27-2011, 02:39 PM
Never let him in. Ever.
Agreed.

GADawg
11-27-2011, 07:50 PM
Understanding that Rose is 70 and has never really been known for his social graces, I laughed out loud as I cringed by this exchange!

no matter your age it IS amazing that the best golfer in the world is a black man(despite what the most recent rankings might tell you)....and the eminem thing? I dunno about the best but he's no Vanilla Ice!

mbgrayson
11-27-2011, 09:30 PM
Never let him in. Ever.

I couldn't disagree more. A 22 year ban is enough punishment. I am just shocked by this sentiment. After all, we have Mark McGuire back in the game, coaching the Cards. We have had cocaine users, juicers, drunks, racists, criminals, drunk drivers, and other gamblers (like Ty Cobb) continue in baseball with barely a peep.

Let Pete have his eligibilty for the Hall, and keep him out of baseball if that's what we have to do as a compromise. Let him have a fair shot at the votes needed to get in.

Pete Rose is a liar, a compulsive gambler, and yet the most competitive (and in many ways the best) baseball player I have ever seen. I won't go back to the HOF till they let him in.

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 09:38 PM
I couldn't disagree more. A 22 year ban is enough punishment. I am just shocked by this sentiment. After all, we have Mark McGuire back in the game, coaching the Cards. We have had cocaine users, juicers, drunks, racists, criminals, drunk drivers, and other gamblers (like Ty Cobb) continue in baseball with barely a peep.

Let Pete have his eligibilty for the Hall, and keep him out of baseball if that's what we have to do as a compromise. Let him have a fair shot at the votes needed to get in.

Pete Rose is a liar, a compulsive gambler, and yet the most competitive (and in many ways the best) baseball player I have ever seen. I won't go back to the HOF till they let him in.

What is the only rule written on the wall in every locker room in baseball?

If someone is stupid enough to go ahead and break the only rule that baseball cares enough about to plaster it in plain view in every locker room, then you get what you deserve. What Mark McGwire did is in no way comparable to what Pete Rose did. At all. And for the record, Pete is a criminal as well. So now he has a double whammy.

marcshoe
11-27-2011, 09:40 PM
I've gone back and forth on this over the years. I've spent the last decade or so (however long it's been since his "confession") being angry and not wanting to hear his name again. I've gone back now to remembering who he was when I was young. He was always rough around the edges, and he did something unacceptable, yet I guess in the end he is who he is, not who I wanted him to be.

I'm all right with him going into the all again, I think.

mbgrayson
11-28-2011, 02:07 PM
What is the only rule written on the wall in every locker room in baseball?

If someone is stupid enough to go ahead and break the only rule that baseball cares enough about to plaster it in plain view in every locker room, then you get what you deserve. What Mark McGwire did is in no way comparable to what Pete Rose did. At all. And for the record, Pete is a criminal as well. So now he has a double whammy.

I am sick of hearing that the gambling rule is the only rule posted on the locker room. Now mind you, I have never been in a MLB clubhouse, but I understand that the entire text of Rule 21 was posted therein. Here is that rule:



MAJOR LEAGUE RULES
Rule 21
MISCONDUCT

(a) MISCONDUCT IN PLAYING BASEBALL. Any player or person connected with a
club who shall promise or agree to lose, or to attempt to lose, or to fail
to give his best efforts towards the winning of any baseball game with
which he is or may be in any way concerned; or who shall intentionally
fail to give his best efforts towards the winning of any such baseball
game, or who shall solicit or attempt to induce any player or person
connected with a club to lose, or attempt to lose, or to fail to give his
best efforts towards the winning of any baseball game with which such
other player or person is or may be in any way connected; or who, being
solicited by any person, shall fail to inform his Major League President
and the Commissioner.

(b) GIFT FOR DEFEATING COMPETING CLUB. Any player or person connected
with a club who shall offer or give any gift or reward to a player or
person connected with another club for services rendered or supposed to
be or to have been rendered in defeating or attempting to defeat a
competing club, and any player or person connected with a club who
shall solicit or accept from a player connected with another club any
gifts or reward for any such services rendered, or supposed to have
been rendered, or who having been offered any such gift or reward,
shall fail to inform his League President or the Commissioner
immediately of such offer, and of all facts and circumstances therewith,
shall be declared ineligible for not less than three (3) years.

(c) GIFTS TO UMPIRES Any player or person connected with a club, who
shall give, or offer to give, any gift or reward to an umpire for services
rendered, or supposed to be or to have been rendered, in defeating or
attempting to defeat a competing club, or for the umpire's decision on
anything connected with the playing of a baseball game; and any umpire
who shall render, or promise or agree to render, any such decision
otherwise than on its merits, or who shall solicit or accept such gifts
or reward, or having been solicited to render any such decision
otherwise than on its merits, shall fail to inform the League President
or the Commissioner immediately of such offer or solicitation, and all
facts and circumstances therewith, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

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

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

(e) VIOLENCE OR MISCONDUCT IN INTERLEAGUE GAMES. In case of any physical
attack or other violence upon an umpire by a player, or by an umpire upon
a player, or of other misconduct by an umpire or a player, during or in
connection with any interleague Major League game or any exhibition game
of a Major League Club with a club or team not a member of the same league,
the Commissioner shall impose upon the offender or offenders such fine,
suspension, ineligibility or other penalty, as the facts may warrant in
the judgement of the Commissioner.

(f) OTHER MISCONDUCT. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as
exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices
or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all
other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best
interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such
penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the
particular case may warrant.

(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.


So it is simply untrue to state that only the gambling rule is posted in every clubhouse.

Secondly, I indicated in my earlier post that I have no problem with Pete remaining permanently ineligible, as called for in this rule.

My problem is with the rule adopted that linked being on the permanently ineligible to play list with eligibility for the HOF ballots. This rule was put in place right AFTER Pete made his deal to not contest the commissioner's finding that he bet on baseball. It is also worth noting once again that Pete's deal with MLB specifically provided for his right to request reinstatement after one year. He has made that request, and MLB has left it sit in limbo for YEARS.

Pete Rose had every reason to expect that when he made his original deal with MLB to be placed on the permanently ineligible to play list, that he could still be elected into the HOF.

There is frankly far too little acknowledgement of the fact that although Rose did wrong big time, he has not gotten what he had a right to expect from MLB; a fair shot at the HOF.

And BTW, I think what McGuire did was far worse: he actually cheated in how he played the game by taking steroids, cheapening the single season HR record forever.

savafan
11-28-2011, 02:11 PM
And BTW, I think what McGuire did was far worse: he actually cheated in how he played the game by taking steroids, cheapening the single season HR record forever.

Let's not leave out the guy who holds the career homerun record as well.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 02:30 PM
My problem is with the rule adopted that linked being on the permanently ineligible to play list with eligibility for the HOF ballots. This rule was put in place right AFTER Pete made his deal to not contest the commissioner's finding that he bet on baseball. It is also worth noting once again that Pete's deal with MLB specifically provided for his right to request reinstatement after one year. He has made that request, and MLB has left it sit in limbo for YEARS.
The fact that he still hasn't been let back in tells you that he wasn't going to get back in even if he had been able to apply quicker.



Pete Rose had every reason to expect that when he made his original deal with MLB to be placed on the permanently ineligible to play list, that he could still be elected into the HOF.
He also had every reason to expect that he would be kicked out of the game the first time he decided to bet on baseball.



There is frankly far too little acknowledgement of the fact that although Rose did wrong big time, he has not gotten what he had a right to expect from MLB; a fair shot at the HOF.
He should have thought about that before he went out and broke baseballs rules. Even if they weren't ones that would "get him banned from the HOF" at the time, it was enough to keep plenty from voting for him if they chose. The HOF says that you don't have to solely vote on the numbers one put up. What Pete did off of the field reflects very poorly on baseball.



And BTW, I think what McGuire did was far worse: he actually cheated in how he played the game by taking steroids, cheapening the single season HR record forever.

It's McGwire. And it really isn't worse. Perhaps what a majority of his generation did was worse, but what he, individually did, no.

Pete Rose cheated the game of baseball in a much different way. Pete cheated baseball, the Reds and this great city that I live in of a great person to look up to as an iconic player, someone to celebrate for the rest of time. Now he is simply a liar, crook, gambler and a disgrace to all of them. Pete is all about Pete. He doesn't care about anyone or anything else. The only reason he finally admitted what he did, was because he was going to make a big profit off of it by selling a book where he admitted doing it. The guy simply has no shame.

mbgrayson
11-28-2011, 02:53 PM
Pete Rose cheated the game of baseball in a much different way. Pete cheated baseball, the Reds and this great city that I live in of a great person to look up to as an iconic player, someone to celebrate for the rest of time. Now he is simply a liar, crook, gambler and a disgrace to all of them. Pete is all about Pete. He doesn't care about anyone or anything else. The only reason he finally admitted what he did, was because he was going to make a big profit off of it by selling a book where he admitted doing it. The guy simply has no shame.

Even if this is all true, and I don't seriously disagree, Pete should still be in the HOF. If we want a character test to screen out jerks, then Ty Cobb should never have been allowed in the HOF. (From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Cobb): "Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being "uppity." When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him." Later, "He [Cobb]announced his retirement and headed home to Augusta, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, Tris Speaker also retired as player-manager of the Cleveland team. The retirement of two great players at the same time sparked some interest, and it turned out that the two were coerced into retirement because of allegations of game-fixing brought about by Dutch Leonard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Leonard_(left-handed_pitcher)), a former pitcher of Cobb's. Leonard accused former pitcher and outfielder Smoky Joe Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoky_Joe_Wood) and Cobb of betting on 1919... in a Tiger-Cleveland game played in Detroit on September 25, 1919, in which they allegedly orchestrated a Detroit victory to win the bet. Leonard claimed proof existed in letters written to him by Cobb and Wood. Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenesaw_Mountain_Landis) held a secret hearing with Cobb, Speaker, and Wood. A second secret meeting amongst the AL directors led to Cobb and Speaker resigning with no publicity; however, rumors of the scandal led Judge Landis to hold additional hearings. Leonard subsequently refused to appear at the hearings. Cobb and Wood admitted to writing the letters, but they claimed it was a horse racing bet, and that Leonard's accusations were in retaliation for Cobb's having released Leonard from the Tigers to the minor leagues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_league_baseball). Speaker denied any wrongdoing. On January 27, 1927, Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings."). If the HOF is about baseball, Pete should be there.

No doubt many of us were crushed when we finally realized what Pete did. But Cincinnati hasn't been asked to give back the 1975 or 1976 World Championship trophy.... or the 1990 one obtained by a team that Pete had helped put together in 1987-89. Pete hurt Cincinnati, but he was also a key to winning three World Championships.

Pete Rose was a great baseball player, even though he is a deeply flawed human being.

George Anderson
11-28-2011, 03:07 PM
Pete said long ago he really could care less if he is ever inducted into the HOF. He simply wants back in the game to coach or manage. If Pete doesn't give a damn about getting into the HOF then I could care less to. His main objective in getting back in the game IMO would be to get a nice sized, steady paycheck.

If Pete ever is inducted, when he gives his induction speech he will drop sponsors names and wear sponsors hats away from the podium as much as humanly possible. If Pete sees a chance to make a buck he isn't gonna pass on it.

With Pete all you have to do is follow the money.

That is hardly a secret.

Roy Tucker
11-28-2011, 03:15 PM
I think that because Pete bet on baseball, he should never be allowed to serve in any role (player, coach, advisor, owner, etc) ever again. He has proven that he is untrustworthy anywhere close to the playing field. I get all that.

But what I don't get is him being ineligible for the HoF. Just what purpose does that serve? Besides vendettas and agendas and all that?

I'll also say I don't think he'd get voted in even if he was eligible with all the water that has gone over his dam.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 03:16 PM
Even if this is all true, and I don't seriously disagree, Pete should still be in the HOF. If we want a character test to screen out jerks, then Ty Cobb should never have been allowed in the HOF. (From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Cobb): "Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being "uppity." When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him." Later, "He [Cobb]announced his retirement and headed home to Augusta, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, Tris Speaker also retired as player-manager of the Cleveland team. The retirement of two great players at the same time sparked some interest, and it turned out that the two were coerced into retirement because of allegations of game-fixing brought about by Dutch Leonard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Leonard_(left-handed_pitcher)), a former pitcher of Cobb's. Leonard accused former pitcher and outfielder Smoky Joe Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoky_Joe_Wood) and Cobb of betting on 1919... in a Tiger-Cleveland game played in Detroit on September 25, 1919, in which they allegedly orchestrated a Detroit victory to win the bet. Leonard claimed proof existed in letters written to him by Cobb and Wood. Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenesaw_Mountain_Landis) held a secret hearing with Cobb, Speaker, and Wood. A second secret meeting amongst the AL directors led to Cobb and Speaker resigning with no publicity; however, rumors of the scandal led Judge Landis to hold additional hearings. Leonard subsequently refused to appear at the hearings. Cobb and Wood admitted to writing the letters, but they claimed it was a horse racing bet, and that Leonard's accusations were in retaliation for Cobb's having released Leonard from the Tigers to the minor leagues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_league_baseball). Speaker denied any wrongdoing. On January 27, 1927, Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings."). If the HOF is about baseball, Pete should be there.


There are several differences here.... One situation is certainly hearsay. One situation wasn't. There is proof that Pete bet on baseball and there has been since the 80's. One had a meeting that was "secret", while Pete was investigated openly in the public. Perhaps it was a sign of the times, but either way, the situations took place very differently. Thirdly, the older guys were cleared of wrong doings. Pete was not.

westofyou
11-28-2011, 03:53 PM
The game was almost destroyed by gambling in the early part of the 20th century, the 1919 series is a result of looking the other way for almost 2 decades, the ensuing result was the growth of the game that made Pete a very rich man, legally.

However that was not good enough for him and he decided he was above the game, but guess what? He wasn't and still isn't, citing incidents from 100 years ago does nothing to lighten Roses guilt, if anything it heightens how far the game has come since then

757690
11-28-2011, 04:02 PM
The game was almost destroyed by gambling in the early part of the 20th century, the 1919 series is a result of looking the other way for almost 2 decades, the ensuing result was the growth of the game that made Pete a very rich man, legally.

However that was not good enough for him and he decided he was above the game, but guess what? He wasn't and still isn't, citing incidents from 100 years ago does nothing to lighten Roses guilt, if anything it heightens how far the game has come since then

Not that this justifies Rose in anyway, but baseball looked the other way the whole of his playing days. Everyone knew he had a gambling problem and nothing was done until Bart decided to do something.

It's easy to understand why Rose was shocked by how hard baseball came down on him, considering the treatment he had gotten up to that point.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 05:07 PM
Not that this justifies Rose in anyway, but baseball looked the other way the whole of his playing days. Everyone knew he had a gambling problem and nothing was done until Bart decided to do something.

It's easy to understand why Rose was shocked by how hard baseball came down on him, considering the treatment he had gotten up to that point.

Pete had no idea how hard they would come down on him or how light they would be UNTIL he decided to make that first bet. He broke the rules. He is paying the consequences, and rightfully so.

757690
11-28-2011, 05:51 PM
Pete had no idea how hard they would come down on him or how light they would be UNTIL he decided to make that first bet. He broke the rules. He is paying the consequences, and rightfully so.

Correct.

And the fact that they looked the other way and did nothing for decades after he made his first bet can explain why he was confused when they finally decided to come down on him with an iron fist.

savafan
11-28-2011, 07:15 PM
Thirdly, the older guys were cleared of wrong doings. Pete was not.

Actually, if I remember the original agreement, it stated that the commissioner's office would make no formal finding that Rose bet on baseball.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 08:04 PM
Actually, if I remember the original agreement, it stated that the commissioner's office would make no formal finding that Rose bet on baseball.

There is a difference between making no formal finding and saying it didn't happen. And as we now know, without any question, it DID happen. Anyone who paid any attention in the late 80's knew.

savafan
11-28-2011, 08:31 PM
There is a difference between making no formal finding and saying it didn't happen. And as we now know, without any question, it DID happen. Anyone who paid any attention in the late 80's knew.

True, but there's also a lot of difference between a secret meeting with the commissioner and saying Cobb and Speaker's transgression didn't happen as well.

marcshoe
11-28-2011, 08:36 PM
I remember the day the ban was announced well--it was one of my most disappointing as a fan. One thing that seems to be overlooked these days was that the possibility of future reinstatement was front and center. The arguments that this is case-closed because the rules say this is permanent ignore the reality of the ban's context.

savafan
11-28-2011, 08:41 PM
I remember the day the ban was announced well--it was one of my most disappointing as a fan. One thing that seems to be overlooked these days was that the possibility of future reinstatement was front and center. The arguments that this is case-closed because the rules say this is permanent ignore the reality of the ban's context.

I think at the time everyone took it for granted that Pete would likely sit out a year and that Giamatti would then reinstate him, but Giamatti's death and Fay Vincent's belief that Rose was to blame seemed to put an end to that.

marcshoe
11-28-2011, 08:46 PM
I think at the time everyone took it for granted that Pete would likely sit out a year and that Giamatti would then reinstate him, but Giamatti's death and Fay Vincent's belief that Rose was to blame seemed to put an end to that.

Yes. Who knows, it may have--although Giamatti's heavy smoking likely contributed as well. His son blames Pete too, though, and he gets to talk to Leno, Letterman, and those guys.

mbgrayson
11-28-2011, 09:57 PM
There is a difference between making no formal finding and saying it didn't happen. And as we now know, without any question, it DID happen. Anyone who paid any attention in the late 80's knew.

And not only did baseball agree not to make a formal finding in Rose's case (which the commissioner essentially violated immediately by releasing the Dowd Report and then giving a press statement indicating his belief in Rose's guilt), there were never any allegations of game fixing against Pete.

In Cobb's case, there were such allegations, and he only escaped punishment because "Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings."

If Rose could have gotten away with gambling by simply not having his scumbag friends appear at a hearing, Pete might still be in the game today. On the flip side, what would have happened if Dowd had investigated the allegations against Ty Cobb?

The truth is that Cobb bought, coerced, or intimidated his way out of trouble. Rose couldn't weasel his way out. Other than that, what Cobb did was just as serious.

One final note: I have to point out that you didn't bother to respond to the key statement I made above. McGwire's use of steroids can easily fall under MLB Rule 21 too. The use of seroids is clearly contrary to the best interest of baseball, and look again at the final part of the rule that "is posted in every MLB clubhouse."


Nothing herein contained shall be construed as
exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices
or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all
other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best
interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such
penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the
particular case may warrant.


Again, I would submit that there is plenty of fault and over-zealousness on MLB's behalf too. While the drug addicts and various other felons are allowed in the game, and Cobb sits ensconsed in the Hall, Pete remains kicked out of both. Pete has been punished enough by his 22 year ban from baseball and the HOF.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 10:08 PM
And not only did baseball agree not to make a formal finding in Rose's case (which the commissioner essentially violated immediately by releasing the Dowd Report and then giving a press statement indicating his belief in Rose's guilt), there were never any allegations of game fixing against Pete.

In Cobb's case, there were such allegations, and he only escaped punishment because "Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings."

If Rose could have gotten away with gambling by simply not having his scumbag friends appear at a hearing, Pete might still be in the game today. On the flip side, what would have happened if Dowd had investigated the allegations against Ty Cobb?

The truth is that Cobb bought, coerced, or intimidated his way out of trouble. Rose couldn't weasel his way out. Other than that, what Cobb did was just as serious.

One final note: I have to point out that you didn't bother to respond to the key statement I made above. McGwire's use of steroids can easily fall under MLB Rule 21 too. The use of seroids is clearly contrary to the best interest of baseball, and look again at the final part of the rule that "is posted in every MLB clubhouse."



Again, I would submit that there is plenty of fault and over-zealousness on MLB's behalf too. While the drug addicts and various other felons are allowed in the game, and Cobb sits ensconsed in the Hall, Pete remains kicked out of both. Pete has been punished enough by his 22 year ban from baseball and the HOF.

Simply because someone else was able to get away with something doesn't mean the next guy should.

Pete doesn't deserve to be in baseball. He doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He hasn't been punished enough by his 22 year ban because the rules tell us that the punishment is permanent ineligibility. The fact that you think some of this is over-zealouness of MLB tells me all that I need to know... you and Pete seem to think that the rules shouldn't apply to him because he was a great player.

mbgrayson
11-28-2011, 10:23 PM
Simply because someone else was able to get away with something doesn't mean the next guy should.

Pete doesn't deserve to be in baseball. He doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He hasn't been punished enough by his 22 year ban because the rules tell us that the punishment is permanent ineligibility. The fact that you think some of this is over-zealouness of MLB tells me all that I need to know... you and Pete seem to think that the rules shouldn't apply to him because he was a great player.

And likewise when I see you confusing the issue of Pete accepting being placed on the 'permanently ineligible to play' list with a permanent ban on HOF eligibility, I lose all the respect I had for your intellectual honesty. Surely you realize by now that these were two seperate things until the HOF changed their rules AFTER Pete reached his deal with MLB.

I NEVER EVER said that the rules shouldn't apply to Pete, I just said that they shouldn't be changed after the fact to preclude his HOF eligibility, and that other players were treated far more leniently. Please don't try to set up a straw man argument or to lump me in with Pete to enhance your argument. I strongly disagree with letting Rose back into the game, which is what he really wants, and I have agreed with you and many others that he was wrong and is deeply flawed.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 10:32 PM
And likewise when I see you confusing the issue of Pete accepting being placed on the 'permanently ineligible to play' list with a permanent ban on HOF eligibility, I lose all the respect I had for your intellectual honesty. Surely you realize by now that these were two seperate things until the HOF changed their rules AFTER Pete reached his deal with MLB.

I NEVER EVER said that the rules shouldn't apply to Pete, I just said that they shouldn't be changed after the fact to preclude his HOF eligibility, and that other players were treated far more leniently. Please don't try to set up a straw man argument or to lump me in with Pete to enhance your argument. I strongly disagree with letting Rose back into the game, which is what he really wants, and I have agreed with you and many others that he was wrong and is deeply flawed.

A private organization can't change its rules? Citing references from 80 years ago to how anyone was treated and trying to apply it to today's standards simply doesn't work. Things are drastically different.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame is a private organization and they can set up their rules how they want to. As things are right now, they don't want anyone in who is on the ineligible list.

Pete did things to get himself placed on that list.

757690
11-28-2011, 10:42 PM
A private organization can't change its rules? Citing references from 80 years ago to how anyone was treated and trying to apply it to today's standards simply doesn't work. Things are drastically different.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame is a private organization and they can set up their rules how they want to. As things are right now, they don't want anyone in who is on the ineligible list.

Pete did things to get himself placed on that list.

They can change their rules however they like.

And when they do, they open themselves up for criticism. The fact that they can change the rules does not justify every time that they do. And the way that this rule was changed has had an unintended consequence of giving Rose fans something to justifiably complain about.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 11:20 PM
They can change their rules however they like.

And when they do, they open themselves up for criticism. The fact that they can change the rules does not justify every time that they do. And the way that this rule was changed has had an unintended consequence of giving Rose fans something to justifiably complain about.

The fact that Pete Rose fans still exist is shocking to me. But I am bowing out of this conversation. I should have never even gotten started on Pete. All it does is make me angry.

savafan
11-28-2011, 11:39 PM
The fact that Pete Rose fans still exist is shocking to me. But I am bowing out of this conversation. I should have never even gotten started on Pete. All it does is make me angry.

I get more angry about an entire generation of ballplayers who cheated to the extent that the historical landscape of the sport and some of it's most cherished records fell to tarnished circumstances making me question the majority of seasons I watched from my teen years to the present, but so many people try to tell me that what they did isn't as bad as one guy betting on his team to win, which I'll never quite be able to grasp.

mbgrayson
11-29-2011, 12:18 AM
The fact that Pete Rose fans still exist is shocking to me. But I am bowing out of this conversation. I should have never even gotten started on Pete. All it does is make me angry.

Even your farewell gesture to this conversation contains a belittling putdown....the implication is that if we think Pete deserves to be on the HOF ballot, we are "Pete Rose fans". Earlier you made the degrading remark to me that "you and Pete seem to think that the rules shouldn't apply to him..."

Well, instead of Ad hominem attacks, lets deal with facts and actual arguments on each side. I am sorry that dealing with the Pete Rose issue 'makes you angry', but you got nothing on my anger at the man.

I grew up in Dayton Ohio, idolizing Pete. I tried switch hitting in little league to copy Pete (I failed, couldn't hit left handed). I had a Pete Rose poster in my room. The times I met him and got autographs, he was professional and very kind. He was my hero. My brother favored Johnny Bench, and we always had a good natured rivalry with this. I was 15 years old when the Reds won the 1975 World Championship. The Reds '75 and '76 title runs made me love baseball, and motivated me via the 'straight A ticket program' to do well in school and life. I owe some of my success to the Reds and to Rose.

My naive fandom started changing as I grew up and as time went by. First Pete left the Reds to go for more money. I resented, but understood. Then later, when he came back home, I was thrilled. Then of course he set the all time MLB career hit record as a Red. Later, the more I learned about his gambling and other lifestyle choices (hanging around with hoods, gambling, affairs, selling autographs etc.) I became more and more disillusioned. Then, when the truth all came out, and he finally admitted to betting on baseball and the Reds, I had pretty much lost all my respect for Pete.

But, despite my dislike of the man as a person (he stands for pretty much every vice I personally loathe), I can't get by the fact that he was one hell of a basball player. He fought to win every game, and he was the fire in the belly of the Reds for many years. What other All Star outfielder would agree to change positions to 3rd base to get another good hitter (George Foster) into the lineup? I don't see that happening virtually anywhere...).

So how do I reconcile these conflicting feelings? I looked carefully at the HOF and it's history and purpose, at what happened in Rose's case, at how other cases of baseball misconduct have been handled, and made up my mind that Pete should not manage or coach in the game again, but should not be automatically denied his appearance on the HOF ballot. The writers may choose to punish him further, and I think this is likely as more people that never saw him play take over. But he should be eligible for the HOF.

So please, don't write off my opinion as simply being a lackey, a fan, or an apologist for Peter Edward Rose. It is much deeper and more complex than that....

dougdirt
11-29-2011, 01:58 AM
Even your farewell gesture to this conversation contains a belittling putdown....the implication is that if we think Pete deserves to be on the HOF ballot, we are "Pete Rose fans"

No. This is what you said


The fact that they can change the rules does not justify every time that they do. And the way that this rule was changed has had an unintended consequence of giving Rose fans something to justifiably complain about.

mbgrayson
11-29-2011, 10:57 AM
No. This is what you said

Ummm, look a little closer. That quote that you attribute to me was from 757690.

remdog
11-29-2011, 12:29 PM
Great series of posts mbgrayson.

Rem

_Sir_Charles_
11-29-2011, 05:35 PM
Great series of posts mbgrayson.

Rem

Absolutely. mbgryson has captured my personal feelings towards this situation much better and clearer than I've ever been able to....and I've tried dozens of times. :clap: :clap:

dougdirt
11-29-2011, 05:53 PM
Ummm, look a little closer. That quote that you attribute to me was from 757690.

That is true. But my point still was that I was simply replying to someone who said Pete Rose fans. Attributing to the wrong person doesn't change the point.

Chip R
11-30-2011, 12:20 PM
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201111/pete-rose-unloading-mlb-banishment-documents

RANDY IN INDY
11-30-2011, 12:37 PM
I get more angry about an entire generation of ballplayers who cheated to the extent that the historical landscape of the sport and some of it's most cherished records fell to tarnished circumstances making me question the majority of seasons I watched from my teen years to the present, but so many people try to tell me that what they did isn't as bad as one guy betting on his team to win, which I'll never quite be able to grasp.

Me too, savafan. :beerme:

George Anderson
11-30-2011, 12:49 PM
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201111/pete-rose-unloading-mlb-banishment-documents

"Charlie Hustle" has sold all kinds of stuff on his web site and at the Vegas location. For $5,000, you can have dinner with him at any Las Vegas restaurant, as long as you don't buy more than $100 worth of alcohol.""

That rules me out, I would have to spend at least $200 in alcohol to listen to Pete's BS all dinner.