MLB won't let Fox or ESPN show video of Pete Rose

[Brutus]

Except, they're not. Why would MLB want to promote somebody who did something so bad it got him banned from the game?

Clearly they are if they're trying to keep from showing something that did happen in MLB's history. Pete did play. The all-star game(s) did happen. Any attempt to not show those is the same as acting like it never happened.

Ty Cobb did things far worse than Pete Rose. Baseball isn't going out of its way to scrub any of his contributions from history.

Pete Rose is the hit king. He's banned from baseball. He's serving his punishment. Promoting him isn't about him, it's about promoting baseball's history that some fans have a fond memory for and want to see it done proper tributes.

[Big Klu]

Pete Rose was my favorite player as a kid. I wore #14 as an eight-year old kid for the Philo Yankees in 1978, the year Pete had his 44-game hitting streak. I hated Pete when he left for the Phillies--I was nine, what did I know about free agency? I was so pumped when Pete came back as player/manager in August of 1984--I remember that I was coming home from the Muskingum County Fair, and we were listening to Marty and Joe on the radio (AM-1240, WHIZ) when Marty made the announcement! I forgave him immediately for his years in Philadelphia (and his brief pit stop in Montreal). I remember his first game back, and I remember that the Reds were respectable again after three years of ineptitude. I remember his relentless trek to 4192 in 1985. Everything was good in my baseball world.

When Pete was suspended/banned in 1989, I believed him when he said he was innocent. I defended him for years, and I blamed Bart Giamatti and Fay Vincent. As I became older and more mature, I realized that Pete was in all likelihood guilty of everything that they said he had done, and by the time he finally confessed I had already made peace with it in my mind, so I wasn't surprised or distraught at all. I already knew he was guilty, and he deserved (and still deserves) the punishment he got.

Pete was my favorite player as a kid, but now I mainly wish he would just go away. He is no longer the tragic hero in the Sophocles or Shakespeare mold. He is just a caricature of himself, hawking furniture in commercials with his busty Korean ex-stripper bimbo/girlfriend/wife. ("But Kiana, I just got to have this Amish bedroom set.")

Now, I said that to say this. I am also a great fan of the history of baseball, and consider myself somewhat of an amateur baseball historian. Refusing to acknowledge a seminal event in All-Star Game history simply because Pete was involved smacks of revisionist history on an almost Orwellian scale. It's like MLB thinks Pete is the boogeyman, giving him the Voldemort treatment and reducing him to "He Who Shall Not Be Named." (Yes, I realize that I have mixed my metaphors!)

Bud Brother Is Watching You.

[dougdirt]

Obviously, those are the rules. The argument for the lifetime ban due to betting is that of upholding the "integrity of the game". The same people turning the blind eye to the roiders are many of the same people who are keeping Pete Rose out of baseball. Because the thousands of games played and the home runs hit by roiders were totally ethical and pure as to where the games managed by Pete where detriment to the game.

When they start implementing a lifetime ban for a first time steroid offense, then I'll be fine with Rose's punishment.

The guys who were taking PED's were doing so to win the game.

The guys gambling on the game both as a player and a manger (Pete did both), well, we don't really know their intentions on all of that. I don't doubt that Pete was a huge "win" guy, but I also know that when you get in debt to the wrong people they can make you do some things you normally wouldn't do too.

That is why PED's and gambling on the game have different consequences.

[reds44]

As Doug said, the reason gambling is such a no no is because it brings throwing games into play.

[bucksfan2]

This isn't about Pete. This is about the fans.

Pete Rose is a part of baseball history whether MLB likes it or not. The fans want to see the greats. This shouldn't be about Pete making his bed. It should be about Major League Baseball not attempting to rewrite history as if it never happened.

For the most part Pete is an embarrassment to the Cincinnati fans. I wonder if you asked non-Reds fans if they felt slighted that the Pete Rose video isn't going to be shown. I would imagine the response would be a resounding no.

Pete is a part of MLB history, so is the black eye he brought upon the sport and Cincinnati. If baseball doesn't want to show the Ray Fosse video, so be it. Its not Pete earned the benefit of the doubt.

[Big Klu]

The guys who were taking PED's were doing so to win the game.

No, the guys who took PED's were doing so to get paid.

Now I'm not saying that they didn't care whether they won or lost. I think everyone who ever suits up wants to win, and when winning no longer matters then it's time to get out. But their thought process was not "I really want to win, so I'm going to take this stuff to get better and help the team." It is more likely that their thought process was, "If I take this stuff then my numbers will be much better, and I will get a much better contract next time." Or even more likely, "If I don't take this stuff, someone else (who might be using) is going to take my job."

[Always Red]

As Doug said, the reason gambling is such a no no is because it brings throwing games into play.

Yep, it's cheating but it's a different kind of cheating, more in the category of a spitball, I'd say.

You're not going to throw a game by taking roids or trying to get hitters out with spitballs. Betting on outcomes leads to worse things, like throwing games.

I'm as big a Rose fan as anyone, and I feel kind of like Big Klu does. The All Star game (week, days, whatever it has become) is a CELEBRATION of the game. Rose's records may not be broken during our lifetimes, but I have no problem with MLB not celebrating Pete during this time.

Those records are etched in stone and can never be taken away, and they also had nothing to do with his betting on the game. Rose should never be celebrated again by the game, officially, and I get that and I'm ok with it. I go to bbref.com every once in a while and look at what he did, and those numbers are always there.

[NebraskaRed]

The guys who were taking PED's were doing so to win the game.

The guys gambling on the game both as a player and a manger (Pete did both), well, we don't really know their intentions on all of that. I don't doubt that Pete was a huge "win" guy, but I also know that when you get in debt to the wrong people they can make you do some things you normally wouldn't do too.

That is why PED's and gambling on the game have different consequences.

I'm not going to compare gambling and PEDs because they're two totally different things, but isn't the sentence I bolded above pure speculation? Do you think it's fair for people to speculate on whether a current player is using PEDs?

According to the Dowd report, there was zero evidence that Rose bet on the Reds to lose. He bet on the Reds to win, we know that. But zero evidence that he bet on them to lose even once.

[reds44]

Doug wasn't implying he ever bet against the Reds, as much as he meant it opens the door to having to do it. Imagine if Pete got in some huge hole with bookies and his options were throw a game or "face the consequences."

Gambling just opens up doors to all sorts of bad things.

[dougdirt]

No, the guys who took PED's were doing so to get paid.

Now I'm not saying that they didn't care whether they won or lost. I think everyone who ever suits up wants to win, and when winning no longer matters then it's time to get out. But their thought process was not "I really want to win, so I'm going to take this stuff to get better and help the team." It is more likely that their thought process was, "If I take this stuff then my numbers will be much better, and I will get a much better contract next time." Or even more likely, "If I don't take this stuff, someone else (who might be using) is going to take my job."

Fine. They took PED's to get paid. How did they get paid? By performing better. Teams win when players perform better. End of the day, there is a reason the punishments are different.

[marcshoe]

My understanding is that they may show the footage, but Rose has to be edited out of it. Ray Fosse will now be run over by an invisible ghost.

[NebraskaRed]

My understanding is that they may show the footage, but Rose has to be edited out of it. Ray Fosse will now be run over by an invisible ghost.

I'd watch that.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Doug wasn't implying he ever bet against the Reds, as much as he meant it opens the door to having to do it. Imagine if Pete got in some huge hole with bookies and his options were throw a game or "face the consequences." Gambling just opens up doors to all sorts of bad things.

OK. So you and doug explain to me (big time baseball fan who not only loves the game itself but the history of the game)...

Why the hell do I have to suffer for Pete's gambling suspension by being denied film of something that happened 43 years ago? How does that make sense to me, the PAYING FAN? The paying fan who does not ever want to see Pete Rose on or involved in a MLB again. Film of one of the most famous and remembered plays in the ASG's history. GAMBLING and film from 1970 are about as apples-n-oranges as it gets. As a matter of fact it is stupid to deny the fans footage of that game/play. The same outfit, MLB, who sells 1975 and 1976 World Series DVDs with some guy named Pete Rose playing. Imagine that!

[Big Klu]

Fine. They took PED's to get paid. How did they get paid? By performing better. Teams win when players perform better. End of the day, there is a reason the punishments are different.

On that we agree.

[Ironman92]

For the most part Pete is an embarrassment to the Cincinnati fans. I wonder if you asked non-Reds fans if they felt slighted that the Pete Rose video isn't going to be shown. I would imagine the response would be a resounding no.

Pete is a part of MLB history, so is the black eye he brought upon the sport and Cincinnati. If baseball doesn't want to show the Ray Fosse video, so be it. Its not Pete earned the benefit of the doubt.

That's easy to say but if MLB let him back in you'd have a hard time getting too many to agree with you. The guy got the biggest ovation for the All-Century team. When he's caught wearing his ridiculous shirts at a Reds game the put it on the video board and within seconds he gets a standing ovation. We are baseball fans that were taught no matter what you always play hard and you always hustle....play like Pete. Pete gave thousands of memories on the field and we could all see them.....it's hard for a lot of people to just damn him when he did nothing that we saw or that visually affected us.

50 games for steroids vs 50 years for gambling is just stupid. The crime is too much.

McGwire lied, cheated, was celebrated ridiculously, made a blue fortune and fame.....all for cheating......now he's back and large within MLB.

A lot of people acting like they'd be perfectly fine with a $150 speeding ticket for doing 56mph in a 55 zone.

I know....he knew the rules and apples/oranges.

My opinion....no one else's. Enjoy the ASG.