Selig on Pete Rose reinstatement: “Still Reviewing Application”

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by savafan

Yet gambling isn't illegal in this country, while steroids are.

It's illegal in MLB.

It's the most obvious rule that isn't in-between the lines.

The lengths that Reds fans take to justify the blatent rule breaking never fail to amaze me.

[savafan]

Originally Posted by westofyou

It's illegal in MLB.

It's the most obvious rule that isn't in-between the lines.

The lengths that Reds fans take to justify the blatent rule breaking never fail to amaze me.

I'm not justifying it, I'm bemoaning the fact that the punishment for a federal crime is less than a nationally legal activity. If the punishments were the same, I'd have no problem with it, but the message it sends otherwise is rather goofy.

[Hoosier Red]

You mean the message of "We don't know if this game is on the up and up because the manager may or may not be gambling/saving his bullpen for tomorrow when he gambles" isn't bad enough?

Seriously, how is it hard to understand that anything that can cause the fans to believe that the game is fixed and/or everyone is not giving his all, is far more damaging than any drug that can ingested.

Baseball's survived the Drug scandals of the 70's and 80's a whole lot easier than it survived the Black Sox. Purchasing Cocaine's a federal crime too.

[redsbuckeye]

I've never liked it when rules are pointed at like a deity that deserves absolute respect. Rules can just as easily be fallable as the people breaking them. Yes Pete knew what he was potentially getting himself in to and he got caught and got the punishment the rule gave him. But that doesn't necessarily mean the rule is good for the game. There are bad rules, after all.

The blanket gambling rule here was a reaction to a situation that was horrific for baseball but it doesn't take in to account how much actual damage was done to the game. Does a baseball person betting on a game he has no actual involvement in (not talking Pete here) inflict such severe damage to the game that the person deserves total banishment? Does that person inflict more damage to the game than a PED user? Let's look at how the game was hurt instead of just feebly pointing at the rules without any critical thinking.

Now, that being said, a case could certainly be made against Pete that he did damage the game enough to merit total banishment from baseball for life. On that ground, I have no issue with never seeing him reinstated.

[Chip R]

I'm prety sure that most Reds fans wouldn't give a crap about Pete Rose if he'd played for the Cubs or Dodgers or any other team besides the Reds.

[BrooklynRedz]

Originally Posted by Chip R

I'm prety sure that most Reds fans wouldn't give a crap about Pete Rose if he'd played for the Cubs or Dodgers or any other team besides the Reds.

And those same fans wouldn't give a crap about the Reds if they played in Chicago or LA. Nature of the beast.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

I've never liked it when rules are pointed at like a deity that deserves absolute respect.

Once you turn a blind eye to players having a finacial stake in the game that doesn't constitute itself as salary then you have no game.

[redsbuckeye]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Once you turn a blind eye to players having a finacial stake in the game that doesn't constitute itself as salary then you have no game.

Like they don't already. And I didn't suggest to turn a blind eye either.

I'm saying people need to think critically and apply logic instead of relying on appeals to authority.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

Like they don't already. And I didn't suggest to turn a blind eye either.

I'm saying people need to think critically and apply logic instead of relying on appeals to authority.

I am using logic, and I believe I'm thinking critically, but thanks for doubting.

Throw the name Pete Rose in the mix and see a whole bunch of local Cincinnati folks doing the opposite, it'slike the buzzards returning to Hinkley, I can set my watch to it.

[redsbuckeye]

Originally Posted by westofyou

I am using logic, and I believe I'm thinking critically, but thanks for doubting.

When you use the rule as a fiat power without justifying why the rule is in place or ponder the underlying philosophy of the rule and just wield it as a blunt instrument for your argument then you are not using logic or thinking critically.

I wasn't suggesting you, specifically, were doing this, it's just something I see every time the topic of Pete Rose rears its ugly head.

Originally Posted by westofyou

Throw the name Pete Rose in the mix and see a whole bunch of local Cincinnati folks doing the opposite, it'slike the buzzards returning to Hinkley, I can set my watch to it.

Certainly both sides of the argument are guilty of a lack of good reasoning. However, I'll quote myself:

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

Now, that being said, a case could certainly be made against Pete that he did damage the game enough to merit total banishment from baseball for life. On that ground, I have no issue with never seeing him reinstated.

I'm not defending Pete, merely critiquing the people who refuse to question the rules.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

I'm not defending Pete, merely critiquing the people who refuse to question the rules.

Why should I question the rule?

Just because it's a rule? I'm hardly a step in line guy nor have I ever been.

I think (and know) that gambling is bad for the game, no amount of questioning that rule will make me think otherwise. I've actually thought and explored the issue about this beyond Pete Rose and still come to the same conclusion that gambling almost killed the game once and is a cancer that shoudl be removed as soon as it's discovered.

[redsbuckeye]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Why should I question the rule?

Just because it's a rule? I'm hardly a step in line guy nor have I ever been.

I think (and know) that gambling is bad for the game, no amount of questioning that rule will make me think otherwise. I've actually thought and explored the issue about this beyond Pete Rose and still come to the same conclusion that gambling almost killed the game once and is a cancer that shoudl be removed as soon as it's discovered.

Ok so you have considered it, and came to a conclusion in support of it. Fair enough.

I disagree that all gambling is bad for the game. I will only object when a conflict of interest is present as was the case with Pete Rose. Pete is guilty of hurting the game, that much we are in agreement upon.

[Eric_the_Red]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

I disagree that all gambling is bad for the game.

Can you give any example when somebody involved in the game the game's outcome betting on the sport is good?

[GAC]

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

From Wikipedia:


The actual agreement is online HERE.

At the press conference announcing the agreement, the Commissioner was asked if he believed that Rose bet on baseball. Giamatti said that in the absence of a hearing, and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he had to conclude that Rose did bet on baseball.

Here you have the sitting Commissioner saying that Rose did bet on baseball, right after signing an agreement that says "the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game."

What did Rose get out of the Agreement if not the possibility that he could be reinstated? He got the maximum penalty. He had to give up the game he clearly loved. Then, in violation of the Agreement, the Commissioner states at a press conference that Rose bet on baseball. Eight days later Giamatti died, and Rose is stuck with an Agreement placing him at the mercy of the later commissioners.

The reinstatement clause states:
"Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement."

Rose had solid legal representation throughout the ordeal. Rueban Katz got a civil suit filed a Cincinnati for Rose, and put real pressure on MLB. The only way I can reconcile Rose reaching this agreement is if he thought he might get reinstated.

Or maybe Rose didn't want a hearing on the allegations where he would have to testify, perhaps under oath, about whether he bet on baseball and the Reds.

The other thing that happened was that baseball changed the rules on Hall of Fame eligibilty right AFTER Rose reached this Agreement. Until that time, there had been no rule prohibiting a player on the permanently inelgible list from being voted into the Hall of Fame. This was put in place right after the Agreement was signed.

In any even, it seems like MLB behaved unfairly toward Rose in three ways. One, Giamatti publically announced that Rose had bet on baseball after agreeing to make no determination in that regard. Two, the Hall of Fame Rules were changed after the Agreement. Three, later commissioners have sat on Rose's reinstatement requests for far too long, without any public reply. They do this while using Rose to boost the All Century team in 1999, but deny the Reds the right to use Rose on the 25th anniversary of the Big Red Machine or the closing of Riverfront or the opening of GABP.

Don't get me wrong: Rose is a compulsive gambler, a liar, and has many other moral failings. He is not alone in that camp (read a biography or two about Ty Cobb). Rose knew gambling on baseball was wrong, he knew about the Black Sox scandal from 1919, and the threat gambling represents to the integrity of the game. He deserves what has happened to him.

I just expect a little more honor from the MLB administration than has been given Rose. The ends do not justify the means, and I would have thought MLB would have behaved better.

My solution is this: deny Rose's reinstatement petition, but change back the rule prohibiting players on the permanently ineligible list from HOF consideration. I expect the writers (and now the HOF veterans themselves since Rose's eligibility time has lapsed) will not let Pete in the Hall too easily.

Very good post.

[redsbuckeye]

Originally Posted by Eric_the_Red

Can you give any example when somebody involved in the game the game's outcome betting on the sport is good?

Well first I didn't say it was good. I don't think gambling is inherently good or bad. Second, your situation is a conflict of interest which I did say Pete was a part of and was problematic.

I guess I'm asking how is it bad when somebody who isn't involved in the outcome of the game bets on the game?