Printable View
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...statutory-rapeQuote:
A sworn statement by an unidentified woman, contained in a motion filed Monday in John Dowd's defense against Pete Rose's defamation lawsuit, alleges that Rose had a sexual relationship with the woman for several years in the 1970s, beginning before she turned 16.
This is all over the news here in Cincinnati. On WLW Bill Cunningham is reporting that Pete admits having sex with this girl when she was 16. More problems for Pete
Statute of limitations, no? Im by NO means condoning these actions, just stating that legally he doesn't have much to worry about, if I am not mistaken.
Also, Pete is a scumbag.
Nice guy
Shouldn't this say "Allegedly"?
No criminal charges at stake. This is basically part of an ugly fight between Rose and John Dowd. Rose is suing Dowd for defamation of character. To retaliate, Dowd released this news.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattfeet
Speaking of statues, I think they should take it down.
It actually says BEFORE she turned 16. So, even grosser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Ray
Three of first four callers after this broke, on 700 WLW stood up for Pete because "he is the best hitter ever"
This sounds like Lakers/Kobe fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by LoganBuck
The age of consent in Ohio is 16, not 18. Not defending seriously sick allegations, but there is a difference between illegal and disgusting conduct. If she was under 16, then yeah it's both illegal and disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
Doesn't surprise me, seems like from what I've learned lately it wasn't particularly uncommon for famous men to mess around with girls who were too young in the 60s and 70s, and fairly openly at that.
This has long been known, though maybe not publicly spoken about by media, hasn't it? Dowd put it out there, but hadn't we heard the rumors before?
Yes, that's the thing. When I was in high school in the seventies, I knew several girls who dated guys in their thirties. I thought it was pretty creepy at the time (particularly when the band director brought a student to prom), but it didn't have the same stigma attached. Things have changed; not getting political, but this was part, I think, of the women-as-property culture that is thankfully going away.
And Pete Rose has never struck me as a particularly enlightened person.
I first heard about it last year, so it's been out there for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougdirt
Think this is like Cosby. Been out there awhile, but now it's going to get picked up for some reason.
My, my. Our heroes sometimes fail us. It's gross, disgusting, and old news. It's like saying someone I knew in high school is accusing me of something. And yet, it makes me sick.
I will say that this news has literally no effect on my opinion of Pete Rose as a human being. It was already too low for that needle to move.
Wow, I did not know....Stay classy, Ohio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old school 1983
The amazing thing about this is that Rose is the plaintiff in the suit against Dowd - in trying to "fight for his reputation" he gave Down a platform to air this again with facts.
That is some great legal strategy he is employing.
Perhaps. I think it could go bad for Pete since his public perception is fairly negative. I know a similar story that had been around for a long time came out about David Bowie when he died last year, but it blew over even amongst the crowds that usually take that kind of stuff extremely seriously, because he was so well liked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
It is actually a great number of states that have an age of consent under 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
It's really disturbing.
Stay classy, America still fits. We can expand even further to Stay classy, mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old school 1983
Yes it hasQuote:
Originally Posted by MR X
Pete rarely hit homers on the field so I'm going to say he didn't hit many off it either.
Bogus story.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by PutPeteIn
I'm pretty troubled by what PutPeteIn considers 'homers'.
To echo Wonderful Monds, there was some pretty heinous stuff that flew in the 70s under the guise of liberation, free love, etc. Not an excuse for the behavior at all. Just a sad fact of how prevalent it was.
Anyone still defending Pete Rose, at this point, should seek professional help.
Cute how it's become popular to condemn this sorta behavior nowadays. Back then it was just run of the mill, even mainstream. Don't blow this all out of proportion with all your new "enlightened" lib ideology. Nothing to see here..Quote:
Originally Posted by Old school 1983
Can't tell if this is a Larry Schuler post or an "Ocean Beam" post...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
STFUQuote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
My mom was 16 when my dad (age 21) asked her parents (my grandparents) for her hand in marriage, which they gave their blessing. Mom was pregnant with me by the time she was 17 and I was born in 1978 at old Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Schuler
In no way do I feel as if I am a product of some sorta psycho rape culture because this was normal civilized behavior back then.
"Rape" was something completely different in the 1970's. Now, if Pete was wearing a mask and hiding in the bushes force raping a bunch of kids then obviously he's a piece of dung.
But if he was engaging in consensual sex with a 16 year old in the 1970's then I say leave him alone about it..
He was 34, married, with two kids, and sleeping with a 16 year old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
That you're making this political is bizarre. Get help.
She says she was 15.... so, there's that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
No... I was there in the 70's you should just back away from this conversation, you have no idea what you are talking aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
Fair enoughQuote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
I'm not trying to defend rape at all
My original response was to the guy who stated that 16 was the legal age of consent in Ohio (which it is).....and then the other guy saying that it wasn't "Classy"
The kicker isn't actually always the age of the one underage, it's the age difference (IE Pete was 34 and therefore is the "Adult") my mother was 17 when she married my 20 year old father (Both had to get notarized permission from their parents) Add in Pete was celebrity and a married one at that and there's the larger story of the hookup IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
Tell me again which part was classy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter
Well, as others have said here, I'm not defending rape culture or general disgusting behavior, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!
I believe that consent laws like this are in part to prevent every 17/18 year old couple (and the like) from engaging in illegal behavior that would brand the older partner as a sex offender the rest of their lives.
That's all I'll say on that matter.
Pete is gross.
Yeah, I think 16 is an okay age of consent. Probably should be paired with some sort of "age difference" rule until 18, though. Like 16 with no more than a 5 or 6 year difference.
But what Pete was apparently doing was very Pete.
A little bit off topic, but do you guys think that Jesse Winker profiles more like Pete Rose or is he just the next Hal Morris??