Say It Ain't So, Bud (Pete Rose Alert)

fanstop.com ^ | 08/20/2003 | Adam Graham

[Az Joe]

By what standard? Any?

[habs4ever]

I have an inspired choice for Commish....Bill Bennett! He maybe looking for work ;-)

[OrioleFan]

If the report is true, then Commissioner Selig has failed baseball fans in a colossal way.

Selig is a failure. Probably trying to use this to line up more support to get rid of the Minnesota Twins (although I can't figure out how).

[Godzilla]

"Drug use v. Gambling is an "Apples 'n Oranges" comparison that just distracts attention from the question at hand: Should Pete Rose be reinstated? My answer would be 'no'."

No, its crime 'n crime.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

By what standard? Any?

He broke one of the cardinal rules of the game. He knew precisely what he was doing and he knew the punishment for it beforehand. He accepted the lifetime ban from baseball which he deserved. That's enough for me.

[Az Joe]

Is there ANY proof that anything he did affected the outcome of ANY game?

The ban he accepted contains a provision for possible re-instatement after one year.

Why is that contained in the document?

[irish guard]

>>>>>>No evidence has been offered that Rose did anything to affect the outcome of ANY game. The Black Sox THREW THE WORLD SERIES. No comparison<<<<<

I think MLB has the goods on Rose, otherwise why would he have been thrown out in the first place? Let's let all the dust settle and see what happens. Rose clearly was a big gambler and that has come out. There are stories (and I admit they are not confirmed by him) that he gambled on baseball games, but until a deal is struck, who knows.

[irish guard]

>>>>>>Shall we include reminders of our currency of our Founders' transgressions, as well? Maybe a few lines of text on the flag of every state that had slave-owners (this included Northern states, recall). Maybe chip into Mt Rushmore with a few words about Jefferson's ownership of slaves, and out of wedlock paternity of a slave's child? Wouldn't THAT make those honorariums SO much better?<<<<

I can guess you are a Rose fan, so anything I add won't matter, but to my knowledge, if Rose admits to gambling on baseball, he would be the only one in the Hall of Fame and that seems to be unique. Sorry if my opinions on the subject of gambling on your own sport seem to bother you.

[Az Joe]

But MLB put in a possibility of re-instatement after one year.

Why do that? And since they did do it, they should be held to it.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Is there ANY proof that anything he did affected the outcome of ANY game?

There doesn't have to be. The mere act of betting on baseball damages the game sufficiently. Why is the standard suddenly AFFECT on the game?

The ban he accepted contains a provision for possible re-instatement after one year.

Why is that contained in the document?

You got me. Probably to make him feel better. Or because it presumed that he might actually take some postive steps to admit his guilt, apologize and try to rehabilitate his image. (None of which I've seen any evidence of.) Frankly, I'm sorry it's there.

[Teacher317]

I just don't see why memorials must contain asterisks, and why every famous figure must be dragged through the mud for al time. Let the have a nice tribute. How does that hurt anyone? But to say that memorials are only acceptable if the contain "the dirt" ignores the fact that millions of parents and their kids will be walking through the Hof in the future, and now they have to explain all the betting nonsense, rather than letting the family enjoy a day of admiring some soporting greats for their achievements. If they want to tel the kid about the betting, they can tell him, direct him to a good book, or whatever. Why do you think htat it is for the Hall to deny future visitors the chance to simply enjoy his accomplishments?

BTW... I'm sure other HoF members have transgressions that they'd prefer to forget (and I bet Babe Ruth has some big ones, since his womanizing and imbibing are so widely known). Rose is hardly unique in that way, even in the Hall of Fame.

[irish guard]

I guess we just disagree on this. I cannot understand how a guy can bet against his own team or for his own team and maintain integrity. Drug use matters too as far as I am concerned. How well does Sammy or Bonds do without their little steriod pill? Just doesn't seem right.

[irish guard]

It is my understanding that after one more year, the old guys are the ones to vote him into the HoF, not the sportswriters...a lot of the old guys hate Rose for gambling on baseball.

[Az Joe]

Certainly you would agree that if he had done something illegitimate to affect the outcome of the game that THAT would be far worse than simply wagering on the outcome wouldn't you? Many players have done precisely that by engaging in drug and steroid use. Where is the outrage about that?

MLB put the provision in that he could re-apply after one year. Either those words have meaning or they do not. If they do not then none of the words in the document have any meaning.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Certainly you would agree that if he had done something illegitimate to affect the outcome of the game that THAT would be far worse than simply wagering on the outcome wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't necessarily. A manager who regularly bets on baseball games is more damaging to the sport than a player who corks a bat.

Many players have done precisely that by engaging in drug and steroid use. Where is the outrage about that?

Who says I'm not outraged about that. (Actually I'm more ouraged about performance enhancing drugs than drugs which ultimately diminish performance, but that's another topic.)

MLB put the provision in that he could re-apply after one year. Either those words have meaning or they do not.

I take it that they mean that he can re-apply. There is no guarantee as to what that re-application will lead to. I hope nothing.

If they do not then none of the words in the document have any meaning.

They mean what they say, he can re-apply. The rest of the document means what it says, as well. He is banned from the game.

[Az Joe]

Not a good analogy for your argument.

I asked for ANY proof that ANYTHING he did changed the outcome of ANY game. We have proof that corked bats affect the outcome of games. So when there is no proof, you say ban him. When there is proof you say don't ban him?

You may have outrage, you aren't the one keeping him out. Where is MLBs outrage? Where is their effort to ferret out these other outrages to the game?

Begging the question on re-instatement.

By putting the clause in that he could re-apply, it follows that they would seriously consider re-instatement. If there was no intent to ever reinstate then the clause is a joke and that makes the whole document a joke. Either they misled Rose into signing the document or they meant what they said, there is no third way.

[Keyes2000mt]

As it was an accident, I thought the punishment was more than sufficient for Sammy's Bat-Corking.

[Keyes2000mt]

I'd say as an overall player, I'd put Bonds second to Ruth and ahead of Williams. He had a great post-season in 2003, but he is no Ruth.

[Keyes2000mt]

Ruth has 4.

Actually 7, he won 3 with the Boston Red Sox. It was his pitching in the 1916 and 1918 Series that made the Sox champs.

[Keyes2000mt]

Sammy Sosa made a mistake. Pete Rose bet on games he was involved in several times. Rule 21(D) is clear that if you bet on a game you're involved in, you're suspended for life.