04/19/24
July 27, 2009
About 2-to-1 against?: MLB commissioner Bud Selig is reportedly considering at least lifting a part of Pete Rose's lifetime ban from baseball. According to reports, Rose would have to publicly apologize again and could not manage a team. Selig is apparently listening to Hank Aaron, who expressed his support for Rose during this past weekend's Hall of Fame inductions.
I'm with bperk. Rose took the easy way out from the beginning. Denied everything, no real apologies ever, and only when faced with the thorough investigation did he agree to a lifetime ban. To lift the ban now, and not let him manage, is really saying "we're going to let you be in the hall". I'm not for it.
posted by dviking at 06:57 PM on July 27, 2009
Purely ignorant question: is there evidence to suggest Rose ever bet against his own team?
Seems to me if that's the case then maybe the lifetime ban should stick. But if not, then it's time to let bygones be bygones.
If members of the Hall Board of Directors are requesting Rose's reinstatement, what more evidence does Selig need than the support of the HoF membership (should they be given the opportunity to voice it in the form of a vote)? And if this were any other major corporation how many people would stand back and accept a decision if the CEO rationalized it by saying, "this is what was decided by the predecessor to my predecessor when he ran this company twenty years ago..."?
posted by MW12 at 07:24 PM on July 27, 2009
Pete Rose ... definitely should be immediately enshrined in the Hall of Fame!
posted by jjzucal at 07:48 PM on July 27, 2009
Unless there is bulletproof evidence that he gambled when he played, he should be in the Hall. The sins of the manager shouldn't overshadow the accomplishments of the player...
posted by MeatSaber at 07:51 PM on July 27, 2009
Mark McGwire cheated, ultimately changing the course of games in which he played in. I'm sure he'll be considered for the Hall of Fame in the near future. As a player, Pete Rose was 1 trillion times the player McGwire ever could have hoped to be. Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest players to ever play the game.
posted by dyams at 08:21 PM on July 27, 2009
rules is rules...and he violated one of the biggest.
He was a great player, and to see his reputation tarnished the way he did is sad. However, that doesn't change history.
At to the steroid gang, we'll have to see how the hall treats them. I'm betting it takes them a long time, if they ever get in.
posted by dviking at 09:11 PM on July 27, 2009
Purely ignorant question: is there evidence to suggest Rose ever bet against his own team?
Doesn't matter. Having $ on a game, even for his team to win, would influence his decision making. Maybe he lets his starter go longer into the game despite a tired arm? Maybe he pinch-hits a player who needed more rest? Maybe he pitches his closer on back-to-back nights? He might be willing to forsake something in the future because he has 50k on tonight's game.
Mark McGwire cheated
a) Mark McGuire never cheated. Whatever he took was perfectly within the rules of MLB when he took them. b) gambling on your sport affects the integrity of the game. It is the harshest crime and as such has the harshest penalty. Everyone who laces them up knows it's an automatic lifetime ban for any offense. McGuire/Bonds/Ty Cobb/Babe Ruth/anybody whose taken greenies, none of them were ever under that same assumption to the vices they had
Fact is, as bperk mentioned, an investigation was done on Rose. The investigation halted part-way through because Rose agreed to suspend the investigation for his agreement that he would be banned for life. Now that the man he had the agreement with has passed on, he wishes to re neg and pretend it never happened.
Who knows what else that investigation would have turned up if they would have continued (maybe he DID bet against his team? Maybe he DID bet while he was playing?) We'll never know because of the agreement he made (which is fine, but let's keep that agreement in place).
posted by bdaddy at 11:39 PM on July 27, 2009
a) Mark McGuire never cheated. Whatever he took was perfectly within the rules of MLB when he took them.
Taking steroids was not within the rules of MLB. There just wasn't a rule specifically banning their use. However, the acquisition of steroids in the US was illegal during that time. I think it's fair to say that a law governing all US citizens would apply to MLB. Comparatively, since there isn't a law in the MLB rulebook specifically banning the acts of rape or murder, would it then be okay if done inside the confines of an MLB facility? I think not.
I think McGwire, Sosa, Bonds may have found and taken advantage of a loophole, but calling it fair or okay is just ignoring obvious dishonesty.
As far as Rose is concerned - there was a rule regarding his offense. I believe it should stand. If it doesn't, that door would remain open for all who in some way "cheated" the game. I certainly don't like that idea.
posted by BoKnows at 12:13 AM on July 28, 2009
Are there people in the HoF who have ever committed a crime, felony or misdemeanor?
If one who becomes a member commits such a crime, is he thus removed from the HoF?
posted by bobfoot at 01:19 AM on July 28, 2009
For a great examination of Rose, folk should read "The Cheaters Guide to Baseball". Fantastic book, and the author explains why it's so bad he bet, regardless of whether he bet against his team or not. (Short version: Rose is a piece of shit for all he's done.)
Having learned from the book and various other stuff over the years all I can say is fuck Pete Rose.
bob: Irrelevant really. If Joe Secondbaseman pushed his wife down some stairs, while not reflecting well, it certainly doesn't corrupt the game in any way. But doing what Rose did sure as hell does.
posted by Drood at 02:08 AM on July 28, 2009
Players break rules of baseball every season, and they are punished, frequently with suspensions. Then those suspensions end and they return to the game. Rose has been effectively suspended for way longer than any of those suspensions. Why is it unreasonable that his suspension should come to an end someday and that he should be able to return to baseball?
posted by bender at 07:36 AM on July 28, 2009
What people are forgetting is that Pete Rose was banned from baseball for gambling while he was the skipper for the Reds..my question is: What does that have to do with Pete Rose the player?
When Charlie Hustle was in rare form, he was the best player out on the field even though the man played with some Hall of Famers. 20 years is a long time for a player like Pete Rose's caliber to not be inducted into the Hall because of what he did as a manager, not as a player.
His stats don't lie and they should speak for themselves. The man belongs in the HOF, no question about it.
By the way, Mark McGwire was never found guilty of using steriods. People assume that he took steriods because of what he said in Congress ("I'm not here to talk about the past"). That's a pretty vague response but it doesn't prove anything. People can attempt to read between the lines but until there is actual proof to suggest that he was in fact taking PED's, we're simply speculating.
posted by BornIcon at 08:18 AM on July 28, 2009
Pete Rose the person is banned from baseball. AFAIK, the Hall of Fame inducts people, not stats. Stats might be used to figure out which people to induct, but it's impossible to induct Pete Rose the person who played without also inducting Pete Rose the gambling manager.
posted by apoch at 08:43 AM on July 28, 2009
Taking steroids was not within the rules of MLB. There just wasn't a rule specifically banning their use.
semantics. If there's no rule banning the use of a 50 inch table leg as a bat and a player one day shows up and starts using one, that wouldn't be cheating.
There was no rule banning the use of those super-swimsuits, so none of those athletes were cheating. Now there is a rule banning it, so of course NOW someone would be cheating if they used it.
Comparatively, since there isn't a law in the MLB rulebook specifically banning the acts of rape or murder, would it then be okay if done inside the confines of an MLB facility?
Not exactly sure what point you were trying to make with this. Would it be OK? no. But would that make them a baseball cheat? Of course not.
Criminal events are handled by the US courts...not the MLB courts.
However, the acquisition of steroids in the US was illegal during that time.
Steroids is legal with a prescription. My dad was on steroids, legally. Whose to say Mac didn't get a prescription? (making it legal for him, even if questionable by the prescribing doctor) Whose to say he was even taking steroids and not HGH or hundreds of other *prescribed* PEDs? Whose to say he was taking anything other than android? (or whatever the hell that was?)
Again. McGuire, Bonds, Arod, etc...did not cheat.
posted by bdaddy at 09:10 AM on July 28, 2009
Pete Rose the person is banned from baseball
Yes, we all understand that but his actions as a manager are what got him banned in the first place. It's not like just because he gambled, all of a sudden his stats disappeared. The HOF does not induct people without the stats, that's how someone is elected in the first place, because of their stats.
Reinstate Pete Rose just so that he can get voted into the HOF for what he did as a player but make sure that there's a stipulation that says that he cannot be a MLB manager ever again. Pete Rose would still be able to speak to minor leaguers, rookies and even fans around the world about what he did that cost him the HOF for so many years.
If we were talking about who gets voted into the HOF for who they are as a person, there would probably be more than a few people that do not get voted in at all.
Whose to say he was taking anything other than android?
Well, if McGwire was an android, that would explain tons. I kid, you meant androstenedione.
Again. McGuire, Bonds, Arod, etc...did not cheat.
Sorry to disagree but A-Rod did in fact cheat, he even admitted it. As far as McGwire and Bonds go, it may not be the most popular response but I have to agree with you there. Of course with Bonds, the whole Game of Shadows book came out insinuating that Bonds was juicing but there's no proof to validate that. Same with McGwire, he was never found guilty of anything other than sweating like Patrick Ewing in the 2nd half.
posted by BornIcon at 09:13 AM on July 28, 2009
Players break rules of baseball every season, and they are punished, frequently with suspensions. Then those suspensions end and they return to the game. Rose has been effectively suspended for way longer than any of those suspensions. Why is it unreasonable that his suspension should come to an end someday and that he should be able to return to baseball?
Because, as has been pointed out on this thread, his suspension was for life. Those suspensions you compare it to come to an end because they are finite in length. His suspension was not.
That's like saying "why is Manson still in jail when my neighbor got released last week?" Well, because Manson was sentenced to life in jail because his offense was more severe that holding pot.
Moreover, Rose AGREED to that lifetime suspension in order to call off the dogs when he was being investigated, so he evidently didn't think it unfair when it was handed to him.
posted by bdaddy at 09:18 AM on July 28, 2009
Yes, we all understand that but his actions as a manager are what got him banned in the first place.
Maybe he did bet when he was a player? Any such investigation was suspended as part of his agreement to a lifetime ban.
you meant androstenedione.
LOL. I knew it had a short name (Andro) but added a few extra letters :-)
posted by bdaddy at 09:22 AM on July 28, 2009
Maybe he did bet when he was a player? Any such investigation was suspended as part of his agreement to a lifetime ban.
Com'on now, that's just a bunch of maybes and I rather go on with what we do know and that's that Pete Rose admitted to betting on baseball as a manager.
posted by BornIcon at 09:37 AM on July 28, 2009
Com'on now, that's just a bunch of maybes and I rather go on with what we do know and that's that Pete Rose admitted to betting on baseball as a manager.
He admitted it after 15 years of vehemently denying it. He has zero credibility. The penalty for cheating on baseball is a lifetime ban. He knew that when he was gambling. He did it anyway. Now, he suffers the consequences.
posted by bperk at 10:51 AM on July 28, 2009
Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, but he should never be a "Hall of Famer" if that makes any sense. Enshrine him with a huge asterisk after he shuffles off this mortal coil.
posted by trox at 11:16 AM on July 28, 2009
Moreover, Rose AGREED to that lifetime suspension in order to call off the dogs when he was being investigated, so he evidently didn't think it unfair when it was handed to him.
This.
It would be like if someone accepted a plea bargain, went to jail and then halfway through their sentence said. "I really am guilty. And I'm sorry. Can I go home now?" No.
And the fact that he blew up his own negotiations with Selig by releasing that confessional fifteen years ("I'm so sorry. Buy my book.") just shows how stupid he is.
And I don't really understand the comparison with McGwire. Not to defend McGwire but betting on baseball has been THE cardinal sin of baseball since the Black Sox. Rose knew what he was doing would cost him a lifetime ban and he did it anyway.
And though McGwire is being considered, for the HOF it's unlikely he'll ever make it in. His HOF vote in 2009 was 21.9% down from a high of 23.6% the year before.
posted by cjets at 01:08 PM on July 28, 2009
FYI - for a good read on this
I especially like their take on these 2 items:
5) Why is betting for your team such a bad thing?
6) Why is betting on baseball a bad thing? Guys who take drugs or beat their wives don't get such harsh punishment. Lots of them are in the Hall of Fame.
posted by bdaddy at 01:57 PM on July 28, 2009
Now, he suffers the consequences
Pete Rose has suffered the consequences for the past 20 years. cjets made a comparison about this situation with Pete Rose and if someone went to jail and wanted out halfway thru their sentence. Well, it's a pretty bad comparison considering that inmates with a 20 year sentence can still be paroled early for good behaviour.
I agree that betting on baseball can lead to someone recieving a lifetime ban and is something that most ball players know. IMO, this rule needs to be reevaluated considering that there have been much worse scenerios that have occured with players and the most that I've seen a player recieve is a 50 games suspension and that was just this year.
Joe Jackson also recieved a lifetime ban because he allegedly betted on baseball while playing on the 1918 Chicago White Sox (it would become known as the Black Sox scandel). Alot can be made about this banishment as well considering that "Shoeless" Joe was illiterate and probably didn't even know what he was getting into but that's just my opinion and really doesn't mean much and I don't even know why I brought it up.
I just feel that it's sad that these men have robbed themselves of a complete ending to their respective careers. These two great baseball players are synonymous with the game of baseball. I say enough is enough, these two are the only two ball players on this list so it just might be time to allow them in their rightful place in Cooperstown.
posted by BornIcon at 03:31 PM on July 28, 2009
cjets made a comparison about this situation with Pete Rose and if someone went to jail and wanted out halfway thru their sentence. Well, it's a pretty bad comparison considering that inmates with a 20 year sentence can still be paroled early for good behaviour.
Except that Rose didn't get a twenty year sentence, he got a lifetime ban. The more apt comparison would be someone who chooses to plea to a life sentence to avoid the death penalty. They can't change the plea fifteen years later because they admit the crime and they're sorry.
posted by cjets at 04:01 PM on July 28, 2009
If Bonds, McGwire. and Sosa were taking prescription steroids, then why don't they just end all of the speculation and produce the doctor's presciption? Even if it wasn't technically wrong according to MLB rules, can anyone say with a straight face that they didn't know it would give them an unfair advantage over other players? They cheated, they know it, and except for a few die hard McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa fans, everyone else knows it too. It's why McGwire and Sosa retired, why Bonds can't get any team to hire him, and why none of them will end up in the hall.
Pete Rose cheated baseball. If they are going to let him into the hall, then they have to let in Shoeless Joe Jackson and the rest of the Black Sox as well. After all, if you make the arguement that Rose has suffered for the last 20 years, Shoeless Joe has suffered for over 90 years.
posted by irunfromclones at 06:47 PM on July 28, 2009
bdaddy, thanks for the Rose Betting FAQ...lots of info in there for any doubters of why Pete Rose was banned from baseball.
If you follow the links at the end of the article, you can look at his actual betting slips and a check he made out to one of his bookies.
No way that he didn't bet on baseball, the facts are just too damning.
I think they should just add a "Cheaters" wing to all HOF's. Baseball's would be filling quickly!
posted by dviking at 06:58 PM on July 28, 2009
This sport is played for the fans. The Hall of Fame is for the fans.
Why not let the fans vote?
posted by bobfoot at 11:46 PM on July 28, 2009
Why not let the fans vote?
Because you see who we put in the all-star games. :-)
posted by bdaddy at 08:58 AM on July 29, 2009
Even if it wasn't technically wrong according to MLB rules They cheated
Those statements contradict each other. To bring back up my earlier example, so do you think all the swimmers in last years Olympics who used the body suits cheated? They knew it gave them an unfair advantage over swimmers not wearing the suits......it was not illegal in the sport at the time to wear the suits...so did they cheat? Let me answer that for you...absolutely not. And neither did these guys. Cheating means breaking the rules. If there were no such rules, then there is no cheating.
It's why McGwire and Sosa retired,
That, and I mean, they're old. And Sosa actually played a season when testing was going on, and was picked up by a team despite these accusations, so there goes that theory.
why Bonds can't get any team to hire him
Bonds also played after testing was implemented and has had these accusations over his head for years. Bonds isn't playing now because other teams don't want the negative fallout of picking up someone like him, not because nobody thinks he still can't play post PEDs(actually I believe he's not playing due to collusion, but that's another story). The man had an OPS of 1.045 in his last season which included drug testing.
and why none of them will end up in the hall.
Oh, Bonds will be in the hall. No one has ever implied Bonds started juicing until right around 1999 and he had his HOF stats and seat already in place by then. I don't think they'll vote him in early, just to make a statement, but they will put him in as they all realize that as well.
posted by bdaddy at 09:15 AM on July 29, 2009
Except that Rose didn't get a twenty year sentence, he got a lifetime ban.
And it was a comparison that you made. We all know that he recieved a lifetime ban for betting on baseball but with everything surrounding the game of baseball since then, Pete Rose betting on baseball when he was the manager for the Reds doesn't seem as egregious as taking steriods to become a better player IMO.
After all, if you make the arguement that Rose has suffered for the last 20 years, Shoeless Joe has suffered for over 90 years.
I agree but to an extent. Joe Jackson betted on baseball while still playing the game while Pete Rose admitted to betting on baseball only as a manager.
By the way, "Shoeless" Joe really suffered for 33 years if you want to be technical since it was in 1918 that the scandal broke, Joe was banned and then he died in 1951 but that's semantics. I hear what you saying.
I think they should just add a "Cheaters" wing to all HOF's. Baseball's would be filling quickly!
How about a racist wing? Or an adulters row? I got it!! How about a wing specifically for players who battered thier significant others? Now that would be sweet!
posted by BornIcon at 11:52 AM on July 29, 2009
We've had this debate a few times, so just 2 quick thoughts:
1. I don't think he should be reinstated, but I use to be more sympathetic to Rose. His behavior over the years has been embarrassing.
2. This isn't the steroid situation. Nothing cloudy about it. The rule was clear, the punishment clear.
How about a racist wing? Or an adulters row? I got it!! How about a wing specifically for players who battered thier significant others? Now that would be sweet!
No, that would be stupid. Cheating directly has to do with baseball. The others do not. This is always the last, pathetic line of defense for Rose apologists. I never know if they simply don't see the difference or are being willfully obtuse.
By the way, Mark McGwire was never found guilty of using steriods. People assume that he took steriods because of what he said in Congress ("I'm not here to talk about the past"). That's a pretty vague response but it doesn't prove anything.
Proof matters in a court of law. If I'm voting for the HoF, I don't need proof. You can turn your brain off if you want, but most people are pretty good at using common sense. If McGwire wasn't using some form of PEDs, he would say so. And if I ask my girlfriend if she cheated on me and she says "I'm not here to talk about the past" I know she did. I don't need 'proof'. The next time I'm accused of something, I'll try that line. I'm betting it doesn't go so well.
When Charlie Hustle was in rare form, he was the best player out on the field even though the man played with some Hall of Famers.
He was a great singles hitter that ended up a miserable player simply padding his stats. But he could be babe ruth and he still doesn't belong in the Hall.
posted by justgary at 01:45 PM on July 29, 2009
No, that would be stupid.
Which was exactly my point!
Proof matters in a court of law...I don't need 'proof'.
And that's fine that you feel that way, I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone else's. I feel the same way that you do about the McGwire situation but we're not voting these guys in so it's not our call to make. We can only be 'armchair quarterbacks' (so to speak) about this and give our honest opinion about the subject at hand.
...he could be babe ruth and he still doesn't belong in the Hall.
Again, your honest opinion about Pete Rose and I'm sure that there are others that think that way as well. I used to say the same thing about Pete Rose until baseball players that we all assumed were clean got caught up in their web of deceit. Whether it was a former ballplayer spilling his guts about ex-teammates for a quick buck and a book deal or a sports journalist singling out a specific player out of 104 on a list that consists of all the players that used some sort of PED...it's just nonstop supermarket tabloid.
We should not forget what Pete did to himself. Most disgraced athletes are the sole reason as to why those things happened to them in the first place. Regardless if Pete gets leniency from Commissioner Selig or not, IMHO Pete Rose deserves to be inducted into the HOF for his accomplishments as a player but Pete Rose the person should never be involved with another MLB team ever again.
posted by BornIcon at 02:23 PM on July 29, 2009
Which was exactly my point!
Well, you need to pick a different analogy. A greenies wing? A scuffed ball wing? That would show the absurdity of a steroids wing. A beaten wife wing? You're comparing apples to oranges.
Regardless if Pete gets leniency from Commissioner Selig or not, IMHO Pete Rose deserves to be inducted into the HOF for his accomplishments as a player but Pete Rose the person should never be involved with another MLB team ever again.
I think comparisons with the steroid scandal aren't very strong. Again, the whole steroid era is cloudy. Who did them? Were they illegal? Etc. Betting wasn't, nor was the punishment.
Allowing Rose in opens up a whole can of worms. The decision, and baseball, are much bigger than any one player. I think most fans that say 'let rose in' don't think of much beyond rose the player. I think about the game, and I hope those in charge do the same, and think the decision through before giving in to such short-sighted thinking.
posted by justgary at 03:20 PM on July 31, 2009
No way. He circumvented a more thorough investigation of his gambling by agreeing to a lifetime ban. Then he denied gambling for 15 years until he had a book coming out.