Pete Rose: In or Out?

**caseyd** · 12-13-2002, 10:34 AM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

No. He bet on baseball. In my book, that's the worst thing you could do. When you bet on your sport (and especially if you bet on your own team) you are compromising the integrity of the game. If they let him him, they need to revisit the Shoeless Joe Jackson situation. Then they need to look at drug offenses and everything else. They need to stick to their guns. No one man is bigger than the sport, I don't care who it is.

**imported_Administrator** · 12-13-2002, 02:20 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

Yes he should be in.

I could give my numerous reasons why but I don't have all day to type them. The Hall of Fame is about a baseball players ability - not integrity. 50% of the players in each of the sports Hall of Fame would be removed if that was a big factor on how you get in.

Bump that to 75% if the commisioner of each league payed to have each player investigated the way Rose was.

I also heard that John Dowd went to the press and has stated he did not have 100% proof that Rose ever bet on the Reds. He did question people who said he did but nothing that shows where.

Could be wrong but I heard that on ESPN Radio.

**caseyd** · 12-13-2002, 02:55 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

I'm gonna have to disagree with ya BD.

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
-The explanation of voting for the Hall of Fame candidates as reported on the National Baseball Hall of Fame's website

It's a combination of things. Does Rose deserve to be in based on his ability and statistics? No question.
Does he deserve to be in based on his integrity and character? No way.

I guess someone needs to decide which one is going to take precedence. If Rose didn't bet on baseball, I'm all for him being in. If he did, in my book, he doesn't deserve it.

**SteelerForLife** · 12-13-2002, 03:06 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

Absolutely not. And although I've prided myself on being open-minded and respectful of others opinions, I really can't understand supporters of Rose at this point.

The problem I think that alot of Rose's supporters (especially the younger ones) have is that they simply do not know the facts of the case. They simply see the highlights of his career (either from firsthand memory or from replays on ESPN), remember all of the gaudy, and no doubt HOF numbers Pete put up, catch headline blurbs or mere footnotes of the gambling scandal, and are willing to forgive and forget for the sake of getting Pete a plaque (more on this later...). But let's look at the facts.

This is part of a post submitted by "triggercut" from the Gone Gold forums that hits on the important parts of Rose's case timeline nicely, so I'll paste it to save typing time.

"I. In a copyrighted Washington Post story, Rose admits to gambling on football and basketball games, fueling long-running speculation that Pete is also wagering on baseball games, a charge Rose denies flatly.

II. The commissioner's office appoints a former federal prosecutor to investigate Rose's gambling habits.

III. When this ex-prosecutor (Dowd) turns up 9 eyewitnesses who all claim that Rose bet on baseball in their presence, including on Reds games, Giamatti summons Rose to the MLB offices for a hearing and to pass sentence.

IV. The FBI becomes *very* interested in the activities of Mr. Rose as well, and begins their own investigation, mirroring Dowd's. They uncover shoeboxes containing betting slips from baseball games with Pete's fingerprints on them. These slips include bets made on Reds games.

V. Rose and his lawyers get a temporary restraining order on the commissioner which bides them some time.

VI. Rose's lawyers help draft the agreement which Rose will eventually sign, removing him from baseball. In return for his banning, the commissioner's office agrees to seal all evidence they have gathered against Rose, and to cease all investigatory activity.

VII. Rose signs this agreement, and is banned from the game by Giamatti.

That Rose has, in later years, tried to protest his innocence by saying that "he never read the whole document" and just signed it is ludicrous. Again, his lawyers wrote the thing, and Pete had plenty of time to read it and have the implications of it explained to him.

If Pete's banning wasn't founded in fact, don't you think he would have challenged it in court by now? Know why he doesn't? Because if he does take this to court, he nullifies the agreement he had with MLB to seal all evidence gathered in the case. Rose is guilty and knows he is. He knows what evidence the Commissioner's investigator turned up, and how damning that evidence would be to not only what's left of his reputation, but also to his freedom if the Federal Government ever gets to see it."

A lot of Rose supporters like to stand on the "fact" that no eveidence was ever "released" that proved that Rose bet for or against his own team. But the real truth is that substantial evidence (eyewitness testimony and recovered bet tickets) WAS gathered by Dowd's team of investigators that Rose did indeed bet on the Reds while managing them (which is what he came forth with in the interview the other day); but the information was never released because Rose and his attorneys prevented that by signing the "lifetime ban" agreement with Giamatti. By signing the agreement, Rose enabled the evidence to be "sealed" and prevented prosecution. In other words, he CHOSE losing baseball over possible jail time.

The reason I say no to Rose's HOF bid is twofold:
1. He's been steadfast to the point of arrogance in his denial that he ever bet on baseball much less his own team, despite the significant evidence proving he did. but even if comes completely clean about the whole situation, does that warrant the type of forgiveness his fans are so willing to give? He didn't just break a baseball rule, he willing broke THE Baseball Rule. The one that hammered home to every minor and major league rookie above all others. The one that prominently posted in every pro baseball locker room in the country. The rule (and its punishment) has been crystal clear for 80 YEARS NOW.
2. Listen closely to this one, it's the kicker... Those stats that Rose supporters love to trot out everytime this issue comes up, the career hits, the 44-game hit streak, et. al., ARE ALREADY IN THE HALL OF FAME. Yes, it's true, Pete is already in there, pictures, memorabilia and all, alongside all of his records. So all we're really talking about is a ceremony and a plaque with Pete's mug on it on a wall. Something that's not even Pete's main concern. Pete Rose wants back in the dugout, period. He wants to manage, he wants to teach, he wants to compete. Thing is, that goes right back to the root of the problem. Do we really want a man with an addiction (which he's never really admitted to as one nor sought treatment for) that DIRECTLY AFFECTS the integrity of the game back in the position that often determines to outcome of a game? Personally, I don't think so.

**imported_Administrator** · 12-13-2002, 03:55 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Does he deserve to be in based on his integrity and character? No way.

<hr /></blockquote>

Again when you bring up integrity and character think of players like Babe Ruth and Micky Mantle to name a few. Many people who follwed both players would question either of their integrity and character. Why people idolized them was what they did on the field, not off.

We shall have to agree to disagree on this one. No biggie.

**caseyd** · 12-13-2002, 04:36 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Again when you bring up integrity and character think of players like Babe Ruth and Micky Mantle to name a few. Many people who follwed both players would question either of their integrity and character. Why people idolized them was what they did on the field, not off.

<hr /></blockquote>

You're absolutely right. If the Hall of Fame were about being nice people, Mantle and Ruth wouldn't be in and Dale Murphy would.

Bonds wouldn't be going in either. To me, we're talking about the bigger issue of discrediting the game itself. If you take away the even playing field, than why even play the game (that brings up the whole other question of steroids, etc.)? Every sport will have its idiots, but when the game is taken out of the players' and coaches' hands, what do you have left? Not much.

Good discussion though. Nothing wrong with a little healthy banter.

**SteelerForLife** · 12-13-2002, 04:42 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

Understood. Those great players were definitely no saints and I personally don't look to pro athletes for moral exemplification. But I think alot of people confuse personal integrity vs. integrity of the game. Sure, there are alcoholics, womanizers and woman abusers, etc. in the Hall right now. But those are issues of personal integrity. But you find any of those type of issues printed in the MLB handbook. Pete Rose crossed the line by violating the integrity of the sport of baseball. If Pete was just a regular at the tracks and had a love affair with betting on the horses, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Pete would have had his induction ceremony long ago. But evidence suggests that he bet on baseball. On the Reds. Maybe even AGAINST the Reds. WHILE MANAGING THEM. If that's true, and the truth lies in official documents sealed away in a vault somewhere, then his actions are inexcusable, apology or not, because it brings into question every decision he made as a manager at the time and, subsequently, every box score that resulted. Imagine if Mike Martz's decision to make Kurt Warner the starter a few weeks ago was made because he had money riding on the Rams not making the playoffs. Hmm...QB on a 10-game losing streak (SB, preseason, 1st 5 games of season) with 1 TD and 9 INTs vs. QB on 5 game winning streak since 0-5 start. Hmm... better go with odds... Warner's my guy! IMO, no amount of liquor-swilling or skirt-chasing measures up to that. Apparently, some very important people felt the same way. Because betting on your own team is one of a scant few things in pro sports that gets you banned for life.

To me, reinstating Pete Rose would be sending the wrong message to a lot of people. This coming from a sport that, in the last ten years, has mastered the art of sending the wrong message.

**imported_Administrator** · 12-13-2002, 04:56 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

Well Pete is no saint so make no mistake that I think otherwise. I have no question that he bet on baseball but did he bet on the Reds? That part has never been proven and we may never know the truth.

Of course if you have an issue with Pete being in the HOF what about how baseball allowed Rose to participate in two Major League Baseball-sanctioned events " the MasterCard All-Century Team and his record-breaking hit No.6 on MasterCard's Memorable Moments list."

Both voted on by the fans mind you.

Why is it okay to let him do these things and deny him of others? Would Mastercard pulled money from Seligs greedy hands had Rose not attended either?

Something to ponder..

**caseyd** · 12-13-2002, 05:27 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Why is it okay to let him do these things and deny him of others? Would Mastercard pulled money from Seligs greedy hands had Rose not attended either?

<hr /></blockquote>

That would be the "wrong message" of which SteelerforLife speaks.

Seriously, Selig is an idiot. How he's still in charge is beyond me. For once, he needs to stand up and make the right decision for BASEBALL, not himself. You're right about those other things BD. If they're not going to allow Rose in the HOF, than they shouldn't be putting him on all century teams or other things either. That's Selig for you though.

**imported_Administrator** · 12-13-2002, 05:34 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Selig is an idiot.

<hr /></blockquote>

And with that we can agree.

**SteelerForLife** · 12-13-2002, 05:44 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

Although I see the point you guys are trying to make and I agree that, on the surface, MLB is being two-faced in the matter, I see a pretty big difference between including a man in some cheesy, applause-begging, made-for-TV events and awarding him the sport's highest, most-cherished honor. To me, including Rose in the SportCentury celebration is akin to allowing his pictures, memorabilia, and records/accomplishments to remain in the Hall. It allows him to be recognized for his on-the-field accomplishments while keeping his well-earned punishment intact. Fans of the sport in general and Pete Rose specifically will always have the opportunity to admire his play. It's not like MLB has taken down his records and "erased" his legacy like the U. of Michigan has done with the Fab 5 era of its basketball program for its transgressions.

I'll say this. If Pete Rose simply has to be inducted into the HOF at some point, do it posthumously. That way he serves his "sentence" but still ultimately gets recognition for his accomplishments. To me, ceremonial induction into the Hall, is a moment of personal pride for a player, moreso than fan celebration. Pete gave up his right to that pride to make a quick buck.

**Diablo25** · 12-13-2002, 07:27 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

In my opinion, Pete should be reinstated...allowed into the Hall and allowed back in baseball. After all of the bad guys who have gotten 2nd chances in the game over the last decade or so I think Pete deserves one.

Bud Selig? As a former "employee" of the man, he gets my vote as an idiot

I really didn't think he would be that bad as Commish and then, well, you know

**Skyboxer** · 12-13-2002, 10:30 PM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

Why he should be in. Bottom line. You can use drugs, break laws etc..etc..and get a slap on the wrist and still be in. But bet on baseball(he did not bet for or against the Reds) and you're out????
Doesn't add up to me.

**SteelerForLife** · 12-14-2002, 12:27 AM

Re: Pete Rose: In or Out?

OK. Let's take a look at these other offenses for the sake of argument. First, the drug thing. Yes, I think it's ridiculous the number of reprieves that habitual drug offenders get from the league. Strawberry was a disgrace to the game (if that's possible) and so was Steve Howe and others. And steroid users are even worse because their drug use is done to gain an unfair edge over their competition. If it were up to me, any of these offenses would at least eliminate the player for Hall consideration. But the fact is, drug users usually eliminate themselves before they reach Hall of Fame numbers. Look at all of the years Strawberry wasted away chasing his next high when he could have been chasing home run and RBI titles. In fact, try to name one known junkie, in any sport, who put up Hall of Fame stats. Tough ain't it? I can't think of one. Drug users hurt themselves much, much more that they hurt their respective sports. Law breakers? If OJ had killed someone BEFORE he was eligible for the Hall, do you think he'd have garnered enough votes for induction (even though his on-the-field stats spoke for themselves and his off-the-field life "should have no effect on his eligibility")? Hardly. Womanizers, abusers? Please, the Hall's already got its share: Babe, Cobb, DiMaggio just to name a few. However deplorable, misogyny just doesn't rank high enough. But the fact remains, all of these players, including Rose, knew the moment they put on a MLB uniform what the consequences were for all of these offenses. Yes, drug users get relative wrist slaps and that's something that needs to change, but Rose knew that the punishment for betting on baseball was much more than a wrist slap. And he chose to do it anyway.

And as far as whether Rose bet on the Reds, yes it's still debatable and we may never know the full truth, but ask yourself this: if Rose really was innocent of the charges and if the investigators even implied that he bet on his team, why didn't he fight it? Why not take the whole thing to court and clear your name? Why sign such a damning document and exile yourself? Rose's explanation? He didn't know what he was signing. Come on now. Between Rose and a team of lawyers, no one could intepret this document? If it was that confusing, why sign it?

My opinion is in my first post above.

Pete Rose: In or Out?

Recommended Videos

Pete Rose: In or Out?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment