Selig mulling pardon for Rose

[Degenerate39]

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]

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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]

Originally Posted by acredsfan

I don't think so.

And I do.

[mbgrayson]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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 or "greenies" usage was among players.

[acredsfan]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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]

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

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]

Originally Posted by acredsfan

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]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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]

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]

Originally Posted by acredsfan

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]

Do you think Rose should be put into the hall after he is dead, WOY, or not at all?

[acredsfan]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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.