Pete Rose invterview...

[Lex]

OK, I see Pete Rose is doing an interview on ABC. They are suggesting he might admit to betting on baseball. He uses the phrase "clean slate". Anyway, there seems to be an undertone that his guilt is not admitting to gambling when it is, in fact, gambling on baseball. Im prepared to start hearing talk that he should be admitted to the HOF based on him coming clean. This bothers me because if there is anyone who has a complaint about not being in the HOF, its Joe Jackson. Jackson, tainted or not, was found innocent in a court of law. And on top of that Landis made the lifetime banishment policy after the fact. Pete Rose says his life was baseball but its really all about Pete Rose. If he was such a "baseball guy" he would take his punishment like a responsible adult. Anyway, back to the original point-- does it bother anyone else that the focus is too much on what he admits too and not enough on what the preponderence of the evidence shows he did?

[SPTO]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

Good question dunno why there haven't been any responses. Let's see here, gambling has become known as a "sickness" rather than something someone does purposely and deliberately with a clear mind. So the impact of said gambling activities are lessened to an extent. It's a step in the right direction that Rose is now admitting that he bet on baseball however I feel that while it may be enough to get him in the HOF it still paints him as a pathetic figure.

Why do I say this? Well i've seen shows where Rose and his lawyers made it look like he was blackballed from MLB after J. Bart Giamatti's death and that while he bet on many sports, including baseball he never once bet on his team. (There really isn't that much of a difference once you bet on baseball it's still a "sin") The evidence is so much against Rose that there shouldn't even be talk of reinstatement but then it goes back to Giamatti who, according to Rose was promised to be back in the game after a year.

North America loves people who own up and apologize for things they've done wrong and while Rose is not wholeheartedly apologizing he gives the appearance of such. He has now begun to paint himself as a sympathetic figure and will almost undoubtedly be reinstated, elected to the HOF and probably signed as manager of the Reds.

As for "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, I think that Selig or whoever is in charge of these things should really take a look back at that case and at least put Joe Jackson's name on the ballot to see if the baseball writers would vote him in. I think that Landis did the right thing at the time as the Black Sox scandal rocked the very core of baseball but now the affects of said scandal is moot compared to modern day baseball controversies.

[SPTO]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

Good question dunno why there haven't been any responses. Let's see here, gambling has become known as a "sickness" rather than something someone does purposely and deliberately with a clear mind. So the impact of said gambling activities are lessened to an extent. It's a step in the right direction that Rose is now admitting that he bet on baseball however I feel that while it may be enough to get him in the HOF it still paints him as a pathetic figure.

Why do I say this? Well i've seen shows where Rose and his lawyers made it look like he was blackballed from MLB after J. Bart Giamatti's death and that while he bet on many sports, including baseball he never once bet on his team. (There really isn't that much of a difference once you bet on baseball it's still a "sin") The evidence is so much against Rose that there shouldn't even be talk of reinstatement but then it goes back to Giamatti who, according to Rose was promised to be back in the game after a year.

North America loves people who own up and apologize for things they've done wrong and while Rose is not wholeheartedly apologizing he gives the appearance of such. He has now begun to paint himself as a sympathetic figure and will almost undoubtedly be reinstated, elected to the HOF and probably signed as manager of the Reds.

As for "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, I think that Selig or whoever is in charge of these things should really take a look back at that case and at least put Joe Jackson's name on the ballot to see if the baseball writers would vote him in. I think that Landis did the right thing at the time as the Black Sox scandal rocked the very core of baseball but now the affects of said scandal is moot compared to modern day baseball controversies.

[SPTO]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

Good question dunno why there haven't been any responses. Let's see here, gambling has become known as a "sickness" rather than something someone does purposely and deliberately with a clear mind. So the impact of said gambling activities are lessened to an extent. It's a step in the right direction that Rose is now admitting that he bet on baseball however I feel that while it may be enough to get him in the HOF it still paints him as a pathetic figure.

Why do I say this? Well i've seen shows where Rose and his lawyers made it look like he was blackballed from MLB after J. Bart Giamatti's death and that while he bet on many sports, including baseball he never once bet on his team. (There really isn't that much of a difference once you bet on baseball it's still a "sin") The evidence is so much against Rose that there shouldn't even be talk of reinstatement but then it goes back to Giamatti who, according to Rose was promised to be back in the game after a year.

North America loves people who own up and apologize for things they've done wrong and while Rose is not wholeheartedly apologizing he gives the appearance of such. He has now begun to paint himself as a sympathetic figure and will almost undoubtedly be reinstated, elected to the HOF and probably signed as manager of the Reds.

As for "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, I think that Selig or whoever is in charge of these things should really take a look back at that case and at least put Joe Jackson's name on the ballot to see if the baseball writers would vote him in. I think that Landis did the right thing at the time as the Black Sox scandal rocked the very core of baseball but now the affects of said scandal is moot compared to modern day baseball controversies.

[Lex]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SportsmanTO said:
Good question dunno why there haven't been any responses. Let's see here, gambling has become known as a "sickness" rather than something someone does purposely and deliberately with a clear mind. So the impact of said gambling activities are lessened to an extent. It's a step in the right direction that Rose is now admitting that he bet on baseball however I feel that while it may be enough to get him in the HOF it still paints him as a pathetic figure.



<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree with everything you said except the "sickness" observation. If someone is alcoholic and kills someone while driving drunk should they get a less severe punishment because it was a sickness? This is a situation where its appropriate to adhere to what has the greatest good for the greatest number (thank you jeremy bentham) which in this case is to preserve the integrity of the game by banning Pete Rose. Baseballs ability to lookout for their product in this case should supercede Roses rights as one with an addiction. Without baseball there would be no Pete Rose but without Pete Rose there would have still been baseaball. You cant put the cart before the horse. The other thing is that the rules prior to Roses existence as a MLB baseball player were well established and known by all participants. He has no one to blame but himself. This could get into a whole nature vs. nurture discussion but at somepoint you have to address when he becomes addicted. If you take the span of time that he was gambling on baseball and, for example, the last 90% of it was after the point he became addicted then you still have the initial 10% to account for. In other words that "sickness" only holds merit if he was addicted to gambling before he played MLB. Besides, even then it doesnt work for the reasons Ive mentioned.

[Lex]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SportsmanTO said:
Good question dunno why there haven't been any responses. Let's see here, gambling has become known as a "sickness" rather than something someone does purposely and deliberately with a clear mind. So the impact of said gambling activities are lessened to an extent. It's a step in the right direction that Rose is now admitting that he bet on baseball however I feel that while it may be enough to get him in the HOF it still paints him as a pathetic figure.



<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree with everything you said except the "sickness" observation. If someone is alcoholic and kills someone while driving drunk should they get a less severe punishment because it was a sickness? This is a situation where its appropriate to adhere to what has the greatest good for the greatest number (thank you jeremy bentham) which in this case is to preserve the integrity of the game by banning Pete Rose. Baseballs ability to lookout for their product in this case should supercede Roses rights as one with an addiction. Without baseball there would be no Pete Rose but without Pete Rose there would have still been baseaball. You cant put the cart before the horse. The other thing is that the rules prior to Roses existence as a MLB baseball player were well established and known by all participants. He has no one to blame but himself. This could get into a whole nature vs. nurture discussion but at somepoint you have to address when he becomes addicted. If you take the span of time that he was gambling on baseball and, for example, the last 90% of it was after the point he became addicted then you still have the initial 10% to account for. In other words that "sickness" only holds merit if he was addicted to gambling before he played MLB. Besides, even then it doesnt work for the reasons Ive mentioned.

[Lex]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
SportsmanTO said:
Good question dunno why there haven't been any responses. Let's see here, gambling has become known as a "sickness" rather than something someone does purposely and deliberately with a clear mind. So the impact of said gambling activities are lessened to an extent. It's a step in the right direction that Rose is now admitting that he bet on baseball however I feel that while it may be enough to get him in the HOF it still paints him as a pathetic figure.



<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree with everything you said except the "sickness" observation. If someone is alcoholic and kills someone while driving drunk should they get a less severe punishment because it was a sickness? This is a situation where its appropriate to adhere to what has the greatest good for the greatest number (thank you jeremy bentham) which in this case is to preserve the integrity of the game by banning Pete Rose. Baseballs ability to lookout for their product in this case should supercede Roses rights as one with an addiction. Without baseball there would be no Pete Rose but without Pete Rose there would have still been baseaball. You cant put the cart before the horse. The other thing is that the rules prior to Roses existence as a MLB baseball player were well established and known by all participants. He has no one to blame but himself. This could get into a whole nature vs. nurture discussion but at somepoint you have to address when he becomes addicted. If you take the span of time that he was gambling on baseball and, for example, the last 90% of it was after the point he became addicted then you still have the initial 10% to account for. In other words that "sickness" only holds merit if he was addicted to gambling before he played MLB. Besides, even then it doesnt work for the reasons Ive mentioned.

[bravosfan]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

The Philadelphia Enquirer reports Rose's upcoming book, My Prison Without Bars, "is likely to include an admission that its coauthor bet on baseball."

[bravosfan]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

The Philadelphia Enquirer reports Rose's upcoming book, My Prison Without Bars, "is likely to include an admission that its coauthor bet on baseball."

[bravosfan]

Re: Pete Rose invterview...

The Philadelphia Enquirer reports Rose's upcoming book, My Prison Without Bars, "is likely to include an admission that its coauthor bet on baseball."