Reply With Quote
MLB had to include him on the all century team, the fans voted him in as a write-in.
Pete Rose
Reinstate Pete and bring me and a lot of others back to the game. I'll always be a Red's Fan but if he was to manage a team, that would be "my" team.
Pete Rose revealed Wednesday that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RoseAppearing on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, Pete Rose said he bet on the Reds to win every night while he was their manager because he believed in his team.
Rose spoke Wednesday with Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann on ESPN Radio to discuss the new Pete Rose exhibit that will be on display at the Great American Ballpark as part of the Reds Hall of Fame. The exhibit will be on display for 11 months.
"I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I was wrong," Rose said.
Rose said that he believed in his team so much that he bet on them to win every night.
"I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team, I believe in my team," Rose said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."
Rose accepted a lifetime ban for gambling in 1989, but denied for nearly 15 years that he bet on baseball. He finally acknowledged in his latest autobiography, published in January 2004, that he made baseball wagers while he managed the Cincinnati Reds.
Rose said he doesn't worry about getting into the Hall of Fame anymore, but if he is reinstated, he hopes to manage again in the majors.
"I quit worrying about it," Rose said about the Hall. The former Reds great said that he thought he was going to be reinstated when he met with commissioner Bud Selig before his book came out. Rose said he met with Selig about a year before the book came out and told him everything that was in the book.
"I really thought I was going to be reinstated. Something changed [Selig's] mind," Rose said.
Rose said he believes it should be up to each individual owner whether he should manage in the majors again.
"[It's] all about dollars, Dan and Keith. If I was ever reinstated. If an owner don't want to win and draw people, don't call my number," Rose said.
Major League Baseball's Hit King also said he thinks that Mark McGwire is getting a raw deal from the writers voting for the Hall of Fame. The reason he said he supported McGwire is because nothing has been proven and they're all "allegations."
"Don't penalize McGwire because you think other guys are taking steroids," Rose said.
McGwire wasn't voted into the Hall of Fame in his first appearance on the ballot in January because of allegations he used performance-enhancing drugs in his career.
Rose admits he made a mistake in betting on baseball.
"I made a big mistake. It's my fault, It's nobody's else's fault," Rose said. However, he said he should be reinstated because "I'm the best ambassador baseball has."
Because of the ban, Rose is not eligible for induction into the Reds' or Baseball's Hall of Fame. He also is not allowed to be involved in most on-field activities, which has prevented the Reds from retiring his uniform No. 14.
Major League Baseball did include him in two events -- 1999's All-Century Team and 2002's 30 Memorable Moments -- that were sponsored by a credit card company.
The new exhibit includes more than 300 items from the career of Rose, who finished playing in 1986 with a record 4,256 hits. His total is reflected at the Reds' Hall in a three-story high wall of baseballs -- one for each hit.
Please go here and vote yes.
Thanks
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...00000000000000
Includes Audio
MLB had to include him on the all century team, the fans voted him in as a write-in.
I don't think Pete Rose has any case for reinstatement.
He lied about betting on baseball, then half-lied about betting on baseball, and then, 17 years later, finally came clean and admitted that all of the things that were reported in the Dowd Report were true. I don't see how Pete Rose has done anything of late to suggest that he's concerned for the integrity of the game.
If Pete Rose wanted to manage a major league team, he shouldn't have bet on baseball when he had the opportunity. I don't think his violation is softened at all by the idea that he bet on his team to win; he still bet on games, and since 1919, it's been made perfectly clear to baseball players that betting, regardless of which team you bet on, is absolutely prohibited.
Whether that's a wise policy or not is a different question -- while the policy has been in effect (and it's still in effect today), those were the rules and Pete Rose violated them, lied about it, half lied about it, and then admitted to it. And he's admitted to it under cir stances that suggest that his admission is motivated entirely by furthering his own self interest.
Pete Rose dug his own grave in baseball. Nobody else -- nobody -- is responsible for the perfectly reasonable punishment that he is now dealing with. The only argument for his reinstatement, it seems to me, is the notion that he is popular with fans. But his popularity with fans should have absolutely nothing to do with whether he should be reinstated or not. If a guy who wasn't as much of a fan favorite had done the same things Pete Rose has done, would there be such a hue and cry to reinstate that guy? Probably not. Why should Rose be treated differently just because he's Pete Rose? That sets horrendous precedent.
Baseball has been ridiculed for years for not making lifetime bans truly lifetime bans (Steve Howe, for instance). This is one occasion where MLB can make a statement, stick to its guns, and refuse to give in -- as it should.
I despise Pete Rose for having done what he did.
Pete Rose logic. It is not a "penalty" to not be in the Hall of Fame. Furthermore, no one said McGuire is permanently ineligible for the Hall of Fame. I think HOF voters are waiting to see if there's anything more to the McGuire/steroids rumors - after all, it would look pretty silly if McGuire was inducted into the HOF and after that, it was revealed that McGuire indeed did take steroids.Major League Baseball's Hit King also said he thinks that Mark McGwire is getting a raw deal from the writers voting for the Hall of Fame. The reason he said he supported McGwire is because nothing has been proven and they're all "allegations."
"Don't penalize McGwire because you think other guys are taking steroids," Rose said.
Anyway, keep Rose out.
umm...no. that guy.
I say Pete Rose needs to be in the Hall of Fame because it's based on baseball accomplishments. He was one of the best players ever to play the game, and betting on baseball doesn't change that. The HOF is about the history of the game - and Pete Rose is a big part of that history. Good and bad. Put the allegations on his plaque, ban him from working in baseball - but don't act like he's still not one of the greatest to ever put on cleats.
I tend to agree with this. I say the baseball HOF should include both the good and bad parts of baseball fame, as long as it goes with greatness on the field. Rose's betting can be put on there, just like steroids may one day be included as an integral part of baseball greatness with some players.
No way in should Rose every be allowed to manage or work in MLB or Minor League Baseball.
Wow...a rare case of FWDT not having all the facts...
Do some intensive searching and look at some of the people who did bet on baseball that got in the Hall without a hitch.
Leo Durocher is the first name that immediately comes to mind.
Also some HOF'ers that rigged games.
Like Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker.
The good old days were not so good...
The grand old game was dominated by racists and alcholics and wife beaters and cheaters. And then came the mob...
And if they'd had perfomance enhancing drugs back then...they'd have done em. they probably did.
If you anyone can show me evidence that Pete Rose deliberately threw games...I'll concede that he doesn't belong in the Hall(even though Speaker and Cobb are in, and they did just that).
But having watched Rose play...I'd bet on just about anyone in the game deliberately throwing a game before I'd bet on Pete Rose doing it.
Did you watch him play?
His entire self concept is tied directly into winning baseball games. He's nothing to himself if he doesn't do that.
One other thing to know about Pete Rose...
When Pete Rose first came into the league in the early 60's the color barrier, while gone, was still very much alive in the clubhouse...
People need to read about what Pete Rose did as young man when confronted with clubhouse racism, in particular that which was directed at Frank Robinson.
They'll find out that not only was the winningest player in baseball history(winning more game than any player), and tremendous on the field leader...but he was leader in a lot of other ways as well.
Pete Rose is no angel, but he's baseball player to the core, and if he's not in the HOF, then it's not the HOF.
Baseball needs Pete Rose a of a lot more than Pete Rose needs baseball at this stage.
In my memory...MLB when Pete Rose was a part of it>>>>>>>>>>> than what it is now.
And Fay Vincent and Bart Giamatti were buttbuddy lifelong RedSox fans...don't think they had an axe to grind against old Pete?
Look at some of the suspensions given out during their tenure...then look at the suspensions they gave to Rose.
Pete's biggest mistake was finally admitting he bet on MLB...he had just about made it all the way back, then he decided to clear his conscience...
And to quote Leo Durocher...nice guys finish last...always in baseball.
You need to re-evaluate your stance FWDT.
Last edited by whottt; 03-15-2007 at 05:05 PM.
Says who? The criteria for HOF selection has always been fluid and open to interpretation.
Dutch Leonard claimed that Cobb and Speaker, along with Joe Wood, had agreed to throw a game in 1919 (note: the game was played before the Black Sox scandal erupted; somehow Leonard didn't make his claims until sometime in the late 20's). But Leonard was given an opportunity to prove his claims and wasn't able to convince Commissioner Landis that the game had been thrown, so Landis exonerated the three players (all now Hall of Famers) of the charges. Curiously, Leonard had played for Cobb when Cobb managed and had been sent to the minors by Cobb. But mostly, unlike Rose, those players were cleared of the charges against them.
In 1947, Durocher suffered a one-year ban that was based on his gambling (and perhaps moreso on his association with known gamblers) but that ban had nothing to do with gambling on baseball games. In the eyes of baseball, there is a stark difference between gambling on baseball games and gambling on other things. As there should be.
My argument, by the way, has virtually nothing to do with the Hall of Fame, and everything to do with involvement in baseball generally. What I do know is this: baseball has generally been as aggressive as any major league sport in sanctioning players for involvement in gambling. The guys that you cite either were found not guilty of the charges against them or were given penalties for gambling associations that didn't encompass baseball games. Ultimately, though, none of those people ever faced lifetime bans for having been involved in gambling. Rose has, and once that ban went into effect, I don't think he's saved from it by citing to examples of players or managers who, for whatever reason, never were shown to have engaged in similar behavior. It's like saying that a guy convicted of murdering his ex-wife and her boyfriend should go free because O.J. isn't in jail.
More importantly, since the time of Durocher, Cobb, and Speaker, MLB has made it abundantly clear to players that the penalties for involvement in gambling are stiff. For crissakes, for a period of about 5 years in the late 70's and early 80's, Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were suspended from any involvement with baseball for simply taking jobs as greeters at an Atlantic City casino. The mere appearance of a connection with gambling was enough -- there was no evidence that either man had anything to do with gambling at the casino at all. Now, was that a ridiculous stance? I think so, and I'm glad that Peter Ueberoth decided to repeal the suspensions upon taking office. But it certainly illustrates the point that contemporary baseball takes a very dim view of those who are involved in gambling -- for whatever reason.
You misapprehend my reasons for arguing against Rose. It has nothing to do with him being a bad guy. It has everything to do with the fact that he committed the mortal sin of the game. I think the fact that he lied for so long about his gambling takes away from any argument to mitigate his penalty -- I don't think that his lying (or tax evasion, for that matter) should form the basis for his exclusion from the game. I don't care if he's there are guys who are the worst guys in the history of mankind who aren't banned from baseball; none of them was ever punished for doing what Pete Rose did. It's Pete's crime that warrants the lifetime ban, not the things that he did before or after.
I don't have to prove that Rose threw games; I have to prove that he bet on games. That's the no-no. And the Dowd Report, which Pete has now confessed to be true, is conclusive proof of his commission of that crime.
Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that he violated the one rule in baseball that has ever gotten anyone a lifetime ban. The rule doesn't say, "Thou shalt not bet on the opposing team in a baseball game;" it says "Thou shalt not bet on baseball." Rose has admitted that he bet on baseball, even if it was for his team to win. That action, to MLB, brings the integrity of the game into enough question that it warrants a lifetime ban. No ifs, no ands, no buts.
Of course I did. I'm not here to confuse his greatness as a baseball player with the fact that he committed the unpardonable sin of the game. Those are two entirely separate things. The latter, however, prohibits him from being recognized officially for the former.
It's too bad for him and for his fans that his entire self concept didn't also involve the understanding that getting caught for betting on baseball would bring with it a lifetime ban.
Again, that Pete Rose might have been the most colorblind man to ever play baseball is completely irrelevant to whether: (1) he was caught gambling on baseball; and (2) being caught for gambling on baseball should bring with it a lifetime ban.
The penalties are the penalties. Pete Rose knew what those penalties were, but he chose to gamble on baseball games anyway. Perhaps he thought he was bigger than the game; but that's a fallacious idea. Perhaps he thoguht that there was a difference if he was gambling on his own team; if so, why didn't he say that in 1989? Perhaps he thought that Giamatti wouldn't possibly send him away forever; if so, that's one bet he lost.
I don't disagree with the first points, but I don't think that Pete Rose is somehow bigger than the Hall of Fame or Major League Baseball.
I'm not sure that Pete Rose standing in a dugout is going to bring back the glory days that I remember from about 1975-1987 or so. I agree that I loved baseball more in those years than I do now, and I think a lot of that had to do with the personalities involved in the game, the equitable playing field available to all teams, the believable stature of the players of that era, and the fact that baseball hadn't yet started losing great athletes to other sports. Pete Rose's reinstatement to the game of baseball isn't going to level the playing field among teams with disparate income levels and it's not going to make kids who want to play football or basketball become baseball players instead. At this point, a reinstatement would transform Rose from a sideshow with an axe to grind to a sideshow with no axe to grind.
Of course. It couldn't possibly be that Commissioner Giamatti could concern himself with the best interests of baseball, give Pete Rose every conceivable way out of the problem, and only then decide to follow the existing precedent for the crime that Rose committed. That decision was based almost exclusively on the outcome of the 1975 World Series.
I disagree. I think that since his retirement as a player, that admission is probably about the most laudable thing that Pete Rose has done. It's shameful that he couldn't have just admitted it when the allegations were made; it's shameful that he thought he could get away with telling half-truths; it's shameful that he thinks he's somehow absolved himself of his crime.
Wait, I thought you said that Rose wasn't a nice guy?
Of all the things you've said here, I think this is perhaps the most untenable. I argued with friends before the Rose suspension that the Jackson precedent should be followed in his case if there was proof that he gambled on baseball. When the Dowd Report was released and demonstrated that he had done that, I was absolutely convinced that Bart Giamatti did the right thing in following that precedent. He couldn't make an exception for Pete Rose just because he was Pete Rose. If anything, I think that baseball has frequently come down way too softly on those who transgress its rules. I'm glad that the powers-that-be in baseball have had the intestinal for ude to stick to their guns and maintain the ban on Rose. It's the only fair way to deal with his poor decisions. Again, if the ban is lifted on Rose -- if there's an exception to made for him -- what happens with players who do the same thing but didn't hold Pete's stature in the game? And how is it remotely fair to lesser players to maintain more severe penalties against them just because they're not as popular as Pete Rose.
Baseball doesn't owe apologies to the fans of Pete Rose; Pete Rose owes apologies to those fans.
I don't intend to re-evaluate anything about my stance on this issue. If Pete Rose is reinstated at some point, it won't be any skin off my nose, but I can assure you that I'll be steadfastly against it until the day that I die.
Rules are rules, even to someone as popular as Pete Rose.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 03-15-2007 at 06:41 PM.
i voted no
What I meant is that it SHOULD be based on baseball accomplishments - on the field and off. It should tell the story of the game - and Pete Rose, all of him - from being the hits leader to his gambling on it and being banned - is a big part of that story.
There are plenty of people in the hall who never played an inning of a game.
As for telling the story of the game, people forget that is the National Baseball hall of fame AND MUSEUM. And Pete is represented in the museum.
The funny thing about all of this is that the controversy has made Pete one of the most overrated players of all time. He was good for a very long time, but only great for about a 3 year span. You don't hear too much these days about guys like Frank Robinson (the player) or Carl Yazstremski, but both were much superior outfielders during the same era.
Understood.
But, the HOF is supposed to represent the best players to ever play the game. And Pete Rose is one of those players. Gambling hasn't changed that.
I'm not saying he's one of the top ten players ever, but he's damn sure up there. He wasn't absolutely dominant, or a player that teams pitched around, but he had the most hits in the history of the game. You don't do that from being pretty good.
Ban him from working in baseball. Make that a punishment. But, don't make the punishment retroactive, and try to act like what he did doesn't exist. Without a gambling past, he would've been a first ballot inductee - no questions asked.
The one thing you dont do as a baseball player or anyone involved in baseball is bet on baseball.
Its taught from day 1.
Its the only unforgivable sin in baseball.
Period.
I agree keep him out for his own stupidity. He can't plead ignorance and he can't plead that there wasn't a precedent for his punishment.
If you want to about players who belong in the hall, go with Ron Santo (the dominant player at his position for a decade) or Buck O'Neill (one of the greatest ambassadors in the history of the game - the folks who didn't vote for him last year while he was still alive should be tarred and feathered).
Pete could have done just about anything and ended up in the hall, but he broke the one and only rule that was posterized in every clubhouse.
i think pete should be reinstated 17 years later so he could feel what we had to go through
FWDT, a rule is a rule is a rule?
Intersting then that you poopoohed my racial point...seeing as how baseball once had a rule against the number of colored players thatc could play on a team. Was it ok then? A simple case of black and white?
I'd also argue that the exoneration of Durocher, Speaker and Cobb had more to do with serving the best interests of the game than actual proof they were innocent.
I just don't agree that a rule is a rule is a rule and that makes it ok...I think if applying the rule is hurting the game, then the rule needs to be adjusted.
And frankly, sicne I believe you are a defense attorney of some sort...I find it amusing that you adhere so strongly to the, "he broke the rules" credo...seems more a convient stance on your part than actual objective examination of all the aspects of this issue.
Pete Rose was voted on to the All Century Team by the fans...that was a referendum on his HOF eligiblity as well as whether or not he has a place in the game...MLB is nothing without the fans and ignoring their clear verdict on this issue was not in the best interests of MLB. Just an example of the out of touch leadership that has lead the game further and futher into decline, and behind other sports in terms of public interest.
And do you really think Babe Ruth never bet on baseball? Do you think if he had...he would have been held out of the HOF? And would it have been wise to do so? I say no. Obviously no.
And finally, the rule making the ban permanent(at least with regards to the HOF) was ins uted after Rose was accused...that happened during Vicent's watch. Does the attorney in you agree with that?
Last edited by whottt; 03-16-2007 at 04:03 AM.
It wasn't okay then. But baseball changed the rule, because the rule wasn't okay. You conflate the effects of a socially-irresponsible rule with the effects of a rule that penalizes specific conduct undertaken by particular individuals. Again, if baseball changed the rule about lifetime bans for gambling, I suppose that Rose would have a better case. But until the rule is changed -- and I don't think it's going to be changed -- its effect has to be applied consistently to every player who violates the rule. Pete Rose violated the rule and like every player who's ever been proved to hvae done the same thing, Pete Rose is banned for life.
What proof do you have of that? Expedient supposition for the sake of propping up a failing argument isn't exactly proof. History says that Durocher was penalized for associating with gamblers, but there was no proof that he gambled on baseball in the context of those relationships. Speaker and Cobb faced proceedings in which Leonard had his opportunity to prove the claims he made against them. He couldn't satisfy Kennesaw Mountain Landis -- the very man who ins uted the rule against gambling and devised the lifetime penalties for those involved in the Black Sox scandal. If Leonard couldn't convince Judge Landis, I'm inclined to believe that he simply didn't have much proof of his allegations.
Fine. Then make that argument. But as long as the rule is in place, there's no principled argument for saying that the rule somehow doesn't apply to Pete Rose.
That's an interesting turn into ad hominem. What on Earth does my profession have to do with any of this? Are you insinuating that I'm unable to come up with opinions that are wholly independent of my profession?
Curiously, I held the same view of Pete Rose before I left high school, while I was in college and before I went to law school, while I was in law school and unsure of what path my career might take, and while I was working for a state court.
I'm not sure what objective examination (other than adopting your own unsupported suppositions) you want me to undertake. Pete Rose has admitted that he gambled on baseball. That is a fact. Baseball has a rule that provides for a lifetime ban upon those who are found to have gambled on baseball. That is a fact. Because Pete Rose violated the rule against gambling, he's subject to the lifetime ban. That is a fact.
That's the best point you've made. But, again, you seem to be arguing more for an exception to be made for Pete Rose than anything else. I can't see that there's any reasonable basis for such an exception, again, because it wouldn't seemingly apply to lesser players. Penalties shouldn't depend on how popular someone is.
Do you have proof that Ruth bet on baseball? or is this just more supposition on your part to try to further your argument? If Ruth had bet on baseball and had been found to have done so, then, yes, I think he should have faced a lifetime ban.
The Hall of Fame's rules are independent, as far as I know, of the rules created by MLB. If the Hall chooses to conform its eligiblity requirements to the eligibility determinations made by MLB, then that's it's business. Baseball can certainly suggest that the HOF create that nexus, but ultimately, the HOF is an independent body that can do whatever the it wants to with regard to who may be enshrined there. If that's what the HOF decided to do, even after the Rose ban was initiated, then that's the rule. It seemed like the right thing to do, given that Shoeless Joe Jackson was deprived of a place in the HOF for having been found guilty of doing the same thing that Pete Rose did.
Which really backs my point on how this controversy has led to him being one of the most overrated OFs of all-time. His numbers are clearly HOF worthy. But he was a compiler who played for 25 years, not one of the best handful of OFs to ever play the game.
Rose just took another huge credibility hit in my book.
Rose was saying that he bet every game on baseball, but the Dowd report showed that he only bet on about 50 games in 1987, during the time he claimed to be betting on every game. It seems he can't help but lie when he tries to come clean.
I agree with that, too. I'm sure that will be construed to be disrespect for what Rose did as a player. But it's not intended that way.
Had Rose stayed clean and not accepted his punishment, I still wouldn't have placed him among the top 10 outfielders of all time. I wouldn't have placed him in the top 13, for that matter.
My top 10 (in no particular order)
Babe Ruth
Hank Aaron
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Joe DiMaggio
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Ty Cobb
Roberto Clemente
Barry Bonds
- any list of the best OF of all-time that doesn't include both Musial and Clemente is immediately suspect in my mind. Musial is one of the greatest pure hitters who ever played the game. Guys who finish 22 year careers at .331 with 475 HR, 1951 RBI (5th All-Time), and 3 MVP awards should never be left off of lists like the All-Century team; but, remarkably, it took a subsequent panel of voters to put Musial on the squad.
Clemente was left off the All-Century team completely, which is ridiculous to me. Clemente was probably the greatest defensive right fielder (if not the greatest defensive outfielder) to ever play the game. And he was, arguably, a better hitter than Rose. Rose hit .303 for his career with 160 HR, 1314 RBI, and won 2 gold gloves and 1 MVP; Clemente hit .317 for his career with 240 HR, 1305 RBI, and won 12 gold gloves and 1 MVP. Clemente led the NL in hitting in 4 different seasons; Rose led the NL in 3 different seasons.
Bonds is probably controversial at first blush, but no outfielder has ever provided the combination of power, speed, and defense that Bonds brought before there was any allegation that he was using performance enhancing drugs.
Pete Rose was one of the best players in baseball history, the all time hits king. He should be in the baseball HOF no matter what. Anyone who says otherwise is insane
Whether Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame is a completely different issue that whether Pete Rose should be reinstated.
I'd agree that anyone who thinks that Rose's play doesn't merit inclusion in the HOF is foolish. But eligibility for inclusion -- at this time at least -- requires that one not be banned from baseball for life. Pete Rose isn't eligible for the Hall of Fame because he violated the game's most sacred rule. That has nothing to do with whether or not he should be enshrined.
By the way, even if Pete is reinstated, he's currently not eligible for entry into the Hall by any means other than the Veterans' committee -- and he might not even be eligible for that. I guess that might be another situation where someone should make an exception for Pete Rose just because he's Pete Rose.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
