agree great post, and tony cloninger nailed those grnd slams off ray sadecki
I don't think anything they did was shady. They clearly had the evidence. They weren't supposed to tell the truth about it and they did? That isn't shady IMO. The report was going to come out even if they didn't say anything. People were going to ask questions. Pete wasn't just going to all of a sudden vanish from the game and no one was going to ask why?
you dont think paying a bookie enough money to assure that he never has to work again is not shady? basically, MLB paid a criminal(s) money to tell his side of the story....then a month after the bookies original interview with Dowds associates, paid him again for more testimony.....to me that is shady. MLB basically gave the bookie full authority to spice up his story for more money knowing that Pete truly could not fight any story he told because Pete did in fact use this bookie and Pete knew no one would believe him now......That is shady.
You want to pay me for some dirt I have on Pete then fine, pay me....but paying me enough to assure that I live well from now on is a little much....to me that screams of something fishy.
There is a reason law enforcement only pays their confidential informants a small amount of money and only pay more based on actual convictions....its because a criminal will lie if he thinks the lie will gain him more money. Bart Giamatti authorized the payment to more than one criminal in the investigation of Pete Rose....those statements were never used by the govt or the IRS, why? because the govt and the IRS knew those statements were nothing more than hogwash and they would never hold in a court of law......yet MLB used those same statements to ban a guy for life.
please do not excuse my defense of Pete as a pass to what he done....he needed to be punished, he was guilty of betting on baseball and I have no complaints at all with that.....I am simply implying that the manner in which MLB investigated Pete was shady and more than likely full of errors and lies..
Cobb was age 41 when he retired and Speaker was age 40. Both men had previously managed and had career winning percentages as managers north of .500%. Cobb had managed the Tigers to one second place finish, while Speaker had managed the Indians to a pair of second place finishes along with a World Championship in 1920.
Cobb and Speaker were therefore both relatively young superstar, future-Hall-of-Famers (though the HOF did not yet exist), with a history of success as managers, at the time they retired as players after the 1928 season. Despite that, neither man ever again managed in the major leagues.
The rumor is that although neither man was suspended for gambling Landis quietly saw to it that neither man was ever offered a managerial position as a result of the investigation into the allegations.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
No, I don't. Is it shady that the prosecutor sets up a plea deal for criminals rather than going to trial for everyone, where in a lot of cases they get the plea deal to give information on others involved?
Or maybe you said "I am only talking for this amount of money" and well, they had to pay up. I'm sure a bookie would never try and get as much as he possibly could though.You want to pay me for some dirt I have on Pete then fine, pay me....but paying me enough to assure that I live well from now on is a little much....to me that screams of something fishy.
Pete bet on the game. Let's not forget that. He has since admitted it. MLB had the proof.There is a reason law enforcement only pays their confidential informants a small amount of money and only pay more based on actual convictions....its because a criminal will lie if he thinks the lie will gain him more money. Bart Giamatti authorized the payment to more than one criminal in the investigation of Pete Rose....those statements were never used by the govt or the IRS, why? because the govt and the IRS knew those statements were nothing more than hogwash and they would never hold in a court of law......yet MLB used those same statements to ban a guy for life.
Here's the thing on PEDs, and I know I'm in the minority: I don't care. I really don't. Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, et al. were full-grown adults that voluntarily chose to use PEDs even with the risk of detrimental side-effects. While not "everyone" did it, it was during a time when a lot of things were allowed in MLB, and MLB essentially gave it all tacit approval with a wink here and a nod there. The 1994 strike was a signifcant blow to the popularity of the game, and if 'roid-fueled HRs got butts back in the seats and eyes on the TV screen, Selig & Co. were cool with it. And really, "steroids" were an issue going back to the 80s, notably with Jose Canseco...I can still recall the '88 ALCS and Red Sox fans chanting "STERRROIDS, STERRROIDS". And in '96, there was Brady Anderson hitting 50 HRs. MLB didn't care.
I don't need self-righteous "guardians" to look out for my kids. That's my job. If they ever make the decision to take PEDs, that's my fault, not Barry Bonds', nor some writer for giving him a HOF vote.
So the rules have changed now...now MLB "cares". Fine. The rules are known. Get caught, get suspended. I just think it's silly to say I'm going to apply circa 2010-henceforth rules to what you did in the 90's and early 00's.
As for Pete Rose, I pretty much agree with you. To me, the good he did for the game: running to first on a walk, head-first dives/slides, balls-out hustle, far outweigh the betting. And I think he still could offer some "good" to the game if only allowed to do so.
Either way, it's really just not a very big pebble in my shoe. On my List Of Things To Worry About, Pete Rose or Barry Bonds being the in HOF doesn't even get honorable mention. I think they and a few others should be in, but whether they are or not, oh well, I still have to get up to go to work tomorrow.
Pete Rose is trash. He was my favorite player as a kid. I even wore #14 three or four different years in his honor. Then I grew up, he got kicked out of baseball, and he embarrassed himself further by lying about it for far too many years. I won't even get into the kind of husband and father he's been. His problem has always been that he thinks of himself as bigger than the game. He still comes across that way in his interviews.
He's desperate to get back in baseball because he knows someone will pay him in some capacity. That's all it's ever been about for Pete. He doesn't care about the game. He only cares about getting a paycheck at the expense of the game.
George Anderson (08-05-2013)
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |