TOPPS disses Rose

[George Anderson]

Why couldn't Topps just say they weren't allowed to put any mention of Rose on a card as per MLB rules if that was indeed the case? Instead they just basically said they weren't going to put any reference to him on a card and thats that.

[Unassisted]

Pete would probably be just fine with Topps and every other company never selling his likeness again. I'm sure he'd very much like to be the exclusive seller of all things Pete Rose. Because that way, everyone who wants something with Pete on it has to pay Pete to get it.

That's why I have trouble getting worked up about this.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Unassisted

Pete would probably be just fine with Topps and every other company never selling his likeness again. I'm sure he'd very much like to be the exclusive seller of all things Pete Rose. Because that way, everyone who wants something with Pete on it has to pay Pete to get it.

That's why I have trouble getting worked up about this.

That's true enough. I wouldn't say that I am "worked up" about this but it is stupid. In a way it reminds me of the old days of the Soviet Union when group photographs of Stalin and his cronies were carefully airbrushed to omit the image of any henchman who had fallen out of favor with Stalin. Of course, in those cases the image of the henchman in a photo was not all that was removed.
Rose gambled on baseball, he has been permanently banned from the game--I get that--but he also got 4256 hits, whether or not MLB wants to acknowledge that fact or not. What next-airbrush Rose from photos of the '75 World Series?

[kaldaniels]

Eh I don't see the commotion. Apparently if you are on the ineligible list your likeness etc. can't be on any MLB licensed product. Here is a picture of the "scrubbed" product.



They didn't take his record away, just are not mentioning his name. Which despite seeming to be "politically correct" in some manner, I understand due to the nuances of exclusive licenses.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Idiots. I really think all the PC crap has jumped the shark.

[Vottomatic]

Okay, other than her surgical enhancements, she's only so-so in the looks department. Obviously 30 to 40 years younger than Pete. What's the point? Money? Does Pete have that much money that she'd wanna be with him? I mean, honestly, as much as I respect what he did as a player, the dude is ugly. And in terms of conversation, I always heard he was somewhat socially awkward.

I always feel these women are simply embarrassing themselves in these relationships.

[TSJ55]

In other news, Reggie Bush didn't win the Heisman and his Trojans really didn't win all those games. The Men in Black have come and erased all those fond memories from their brains.

Nothing more than self-important big shots trying to make a story where there is none.

[SweetLou1990]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

As I've said many times else. I HATE revisionist history. Acting like something didn't happen neither honors the game nor educates the fans.

agreed, you shouldn't change history. shouldn't be able to wipe wins "off the board" in the NCAA, take away championships, etc.

Pete has the hits record and he did it CLEANLY, well if you believe him he did it cleanly, which no one should believe anything he has to say.

PS.. I like the "enhancements", and apparantly so does Pete

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

Idiots. I really think all the PC crap has jumped the shark.

What about this is PC?

Pete is banned from baseball and therefore, their products which includes baseball cards.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SweetLou1990

agreed, you shouldn't change history. shouldn't be able to wipe wins "off the board" in the NCAA, take away championships, etc.

Pete has the hits record and he did it CLEANLY, well if you believe him he did it cleanly, which no one should believe anything he has to say.

PS.. I like the "enhancements", and apparantly so does Pete

Well, you know, except for all of those "greenies" that he took which are absolutely banned today and would get you suspended just as quick as steroids or HGH would.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

What about this is PC?

Pete is banned from baseball and therefore, their products which includes baseball cards.

No one here has said that Topps needs to put out a new Pete Rose baseball card, but if a card is going to refer to a record that Rose holds, then omitting Rose's name is stupid.
Will MLB next mandate that Shoeless Joe Jackson, Eddie Cicotte and the rest of the Black Sox be deleted from baseball box scores?
Anyone think MLB makes money from the sale of World Series photos? Is Rose to be deleted from any photos of the '70, '72, '75, '76, '80 and '83 World Series?
I guess future MLB photos and accounts of the 1970 All Star game will refer to an unknown player slamming into Ray Fosse to score the winning run for the NL.
I assume future accounts of game three of the 1973 NLCS will refer to a scuffle between Mets shortstop Bud Harrelson and an unknown Reds player.
I repeat, this decision by MLB is stupid.

[kaldaniels]

QB Browns led my team to several championships back in the day playing Tecmo Super Bowl.

So maybe I've grown to be immune, but these licensing issues don't get me riled up.

[WMR]

How's it possible that Pete hasn't released his own line of Pete Rose baseball cards endorsed by Pete Rose, signed by Pete Rose, with 1 pack in every 100 containing a piece of Pete Rose's "wife's" panties???

I see massive attention whoring possibilities here for ole Pete.

[WMR]

How's it possible that Pete hasn't released his own line of Pete Rose baseball cards endorsed by Pete Rose, signed by Pete Rose, with 1 pack in every 100 containing a piece of Pete Rose's "wife's" panties???

I see massive attention whoring possibilities here for ole Pete.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

No one here has said that Topps needs to put out a new Pete Rose baseball card, but if a card is going to refer to a record that Rose holds, then omitting Rose's name is stupid.
Will MLB next mandate that Shoeless Joe Jackson, Eddie Cicotte and the rest of the Black Sox be deleted from baseball box scores?
Anyone think MLB makes money from the sale of World Series photos? Is Rose to be deleted from any photos of the '70, '72, '75, '76, '80 and '83 World Series?
I guess future MLB photos and accounts of the 1970 All Star game will refer to an unknown player slamming into Ray Fosse to score the winning run for the NL.
I assume future accounts of game three of the 1973 NLCS will refer to a scuffle between Mets shortstop Bud Harrelson and an unknown Reds player.
I repeat, this decision by MLB is stupid.

You don't see the difference in not allowing new products have him on them versus erasing him from photos of things that happened?

This is a great idea from baseball. You get what you deserve. Pete thought he was bigger than the rules of baseball. He wasn't. Now he is paying the price.