Selig on Pete Rose reinstatement: “Still Reviewing Application”

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

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?

The issue is those involved, the issue is the disregard of this rule that is on the wall in every clubhouse, the wall that Pete Rose walked by over 20 thousand times.

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rule21.html

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by westofyou

No surprise here, reds fans give Pete a pass as much as Giants fans gave Barry a pass.....Pete broke the rule on the wall though, he gets no pass from me.

MLB is giving Bonds a pass.

But I don't think Red fans, in general, are giving Rose a pass (per say). Here in Reds country, the subject matter of Pete Rose has been beaten to death and discussed ad nauseam for many years. And a vast majority, like myself - and there probably isn't a bigger Pete Rose fan on this board then me - who grew up idolizing the guy, believe he should never be allowed back into the game in any role because of his rule breaking. So that is not giving the guy a pass.

But what has bothered me, and many others, and it was mentioned earlier, was that while he agreed to the voluntary ban from baseball - that did not include a ban from the HOF. That rule was changed after-the-fact, and specifically done so solely for Pete Rose. IMO, that was pretty shoddy and under-handed by MLB.

The guy has served plenty of time in "exile" as punishment for what he did when it comes to HOF consideration. He gave his all for the game and on that playing field. He is one of the greatest players to have played the game. He belongs in the HOF next to all those other SOBs.

In our society, we parole hardened criminals, even murderers, after paying their "debt" to society. Yet not a guy like Rose. What he did is somehow unforgiveable. And even if he is allowed into the HOF, it's not like what he did (gambling) is ever going to be forgotten. He will always be remembered for that, and have to carry that mantle of shame over that certain aspect of his life. But as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see that other aspect of his life, in which he did far more FOR the game, then he did to hurt or tarnish it, receive some of that recognition while he is still alive, and can enjoy it. Enough is enough IMO.

[savafan]

So, since we can't argue that Rose was ignorant of the rule, wasn't his acceptance of the lifetime ban, in essence, an admission of guilt, albeit not directly?

[RFS62]

The real punishment for Pete isn't the Hall of Fame. It's banishment from employment in baseball. That cost him many millions.

And when he signed the agreement, it was the least of his worries. He was facing charges which landed him in jail.

Pete is all over the Hall of Fame, as well he should be. But he doesn't have a plaque. I can't imagine anyone who knows anything at all about baseball who doesn't know how great a player Pete was in his day. He doesn't need a plaque for that.

He flaunted the most sacrosanct rule in the game. His only regret was that he was caught. He lied for years about it, then cashed in on the same lie with his book.

Sorry Pete. I loved you when you played. You made your bed, now you get to sleep in it.