Selig mulling pardon for Rose

[TRF]

Yeah, lets keep talking about Rose.

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

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by TRF

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

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]

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]

Originally Posted by savafan

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]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by savafan

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]

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]

Originally Posted by GAC

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]

So...according to federal law, they have to have a Dr's prescription. That's easy enough to do.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by savafan

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]

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.