11/05/24
January 05, 2004
In an interview to be broadcast Thursday on ABC, Pete Rose admits he bet on baseball while managing the Reds, even placing wagers on his own team. The move may affect his banishment from the game (and will definitely affect his new book), but Rose says no deal has been made with the league.
You know, I've been thinking about this issue, and I think I've completely flopped on it. I used to be all for Rose being inducted, but after watching and reading the interviews, I have to say this man just stinks of insincerity. I try to look past people's character and look at their achievement (eg. Barry Bonds), but I just can't do it. I hope he never gets in.
posted by corpse at 11:30 AM on January 05, 2004
I really wanted him the HOF ... as close as last week, but I am sure that once I see that interview, I am not going to feel sorry for him. Gambling can be addictive and can be considered a disease. What bugs me is that he took this long to to admit to it.
posted by jasonspaceman at 12:13 PM on January 05, 2004
Rose's poor-me act is tiresome, but as I've said before, 15 years' banishment is a sufficient sentence for what he finally admits to doing. Baseball ought to respond to his admission by reinstating him. If the Hall of Fame or an owner like Carl Linder wants Rose, enough time has passed that it should be possible. He also ought to be a fixture at Reds' old-timers games and other festivities. I don't agree with lifetime bans in sport.
posted by rcade at 12:14 PM on January 05, 2004
Look, even though he says no deal has been made with the league, it's crazy to think that's true. The book will come out, the interview will be broadcast, the ban will be lifted, the asshat will get inducted. The thing about Pete Rose is that he's got absolutely no class. I read his whole sob story about if he'd been addicted to drugs and alcohol, MLB would have coddled him and rehabbed him. What a poor analogy. I think the lifetime ban should stand. What Pete Rose did as a player is certainly worthy of the HOF. But what he did off the field is worthy of a lifetime ban as punishment. He should go to his grave snubbed by baseball, and enter the HOF the next day.
posted by rocketman at 12:23 PM on January 05, 2004
posted by forksclovetofu at 12:25 PM on January 05, 2004
I think that the admission will, one way or the other, settle his situation once and for all. One thing I can tell you for sure, I'm eagerly waiting for that.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:40 PM on January 05, 2004
Hear hear, Rocketman! The man has finally, after 15 years of denial, come out and said he bet on baseball, but he didn't 1) bet against his own team and 2) didn't bet from the clubhouse. Why should we believe either of those statements? He hid the truth for 15 years until he thought he might be reinstated. What's to say he's not lying about the other two issues? If ever there was a fellow whose word we should doubt, it's Charlie Hustle. Great (if overrated) ballplayer, yes, and would have been worthy of the Hall of Fame, but what he did afterward erased all of that.
I can sum it up for all of you in three simple words:
Fuck. Pete. Rose.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:06 PM on January 05, 2004
I feel like corpse and the rest of you. I long held that the man should be in the Hall, but suddenly I feel dirty about that. I still say let him in (because his sins came after the HOF career), but don't let him touch the game of baseball. The ban should stay.
posted by 86 at 03:08 PM on January 05, 2004
That's not possible, 86. A ban from baseball would ban Rose from the hall as well.
posted by rcade at 03:39 PM on January 05, 2004
Who cares? There's barely an England footballer in the last 50 years who didn't bet on football. I can't remember which footballer it was who said, "I could pass a ball, but I couldn't pass a betting shop". Stanley Bowles, perhaps?
posted by salmacis at 04:20 PM on January 05, 2004
Rcade, I think they could work those details out. Let him get his chance at the Hall, but prohibit him from coaching.
posted by 86 at 04:48 PM on January 05, 2004
I agree with wfrazerjr's three simple words.
posted by jeffmshaw at 05:10 PM on January 05, 2004
sal, do you ever get betting scandals? i've not noticed any in the last two years or so, since i started watching/
posted by billsaysthis at 05:34 PM on January 05, 2004
Fuck. Pete. Rose.
I'd love to get that on a shirt and wear it to his induction ceremony in 2005. I've almost come to resign myself to the fact that baseball is going to let him back in, the writers will vote him in, and I'll have to stare at his ugly mug when he gets into the BHOF. I really hope I'm wrong, but I think Bud the Slug is going where the money (publicity) is...
posted by grum@work at 05:59 PM on January 05, 2004
Sounds like a winner to me, Grum. How do I copyright that shit?
posted by wfrazerjr at 06:12 PM on January 05, 2004
I'm pretty sure you can't copyright Fuck. Although some have tried.
posted by forksclovetofu at 06:44 PM on January 05, 2004
I've got three words for you: Tyrus Raymond Cobb. Pete Rose is a jackass. He wants everyone to feel sorry for him about problems of his own making. He bet on baseball. He has no class. His hair sucks so bad one might think he is cursed to never go bald. To me, none of that means he can't be listed in the Hall of Fame as among the best to play the game. I don't want to about integrity: what he did pales in comparison to the lack of simple humanity shown by plenty of Hall of Famers. You can say betting on baseball hurt The Game. Keep in mind The Game, no matter how wonderful, is insignificant and damaging its integrity even less important. Some of those deep-fried dick-lickers who already have plaques were barely human. Pete Rose was celebrated for his failings (by overcoming them through hustle). He is reviled (rightly) for his failings. I find it incredibly hard to imagine average quality of human being in the Hall of Fame would be sensibly diminished by his enshrinement or banishment.
posted by yerfatma at 07:53 PM on January 05, 2004
1. There's one rule in baseball that, if broken, causes you to get banned for life.
2. This rule has been in place for about 100 years. Everyone knows this rule, because it's prominently posted in every major league clubhouse.
3. Pete Rose knew this rule, knew the potential consequences of flouting it, and did it fairly brazenly.
It's not an issue of Pete Rose being a better or worse person that Ty Cobb. Both were loathsome individuals. There is no rule saying you mustn't be a reprehensible scumbag to participate in major league baseball. There is a rule saying you can't bet on baseball, especially not your own team. That's the difference.
posted by jeffmshaw at 07:59 PM on January 05, 2004
Keep in mind The Game, no matter how wonderful, is insignificant and damaging its integrity even less important.
Apparently the game carries some significance for you. Otherwise, why bother posting anything? Everything has a different amount of significance to everyone. I happen to not take lightly the fact that Rose chose to ignore what's clearly stated in every major-league baseball clubhouse Don't Bet On Baseball, Dumbfuck. No one's going to argue with you that Cobb was one of the worst human beings ever to walk this planet. Jesus, you think I have a soft spot for racist nitwits who beat up handicapped fans? He was universally reviled even during his playing days. For chrissakes, only three baseball people showed up at his funeral! Still, guess what? Cobb didn't break the rules of baseball. Rose, even though he is beloved by millions, did. Cobb gets in. Rose doesn't. What's so hard to understand about that?
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:35 PM on January 05, 2004
By the way, anyone interested in knowing more about Tyrus and his antics would do well to visit this excellent web site and just schlep around a bit reading.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:43 PM on January 05, 2004
Baseball, I shudder to say this, needs another Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Bud must go.
posted by alex_reno at 10:21 PM on January 05, 2004
No one needs another Landis. That's like saying the Supreme Court needs another Roger Taney.
posted by yerfatma at 06:49 AM on January 06, 2004
My final word: put him in the HoF (because what he accomplished as a player) and that's it. Keep him out of any other baseball activities. His gambling on baseball is like insider trading on the stock market. He committed the crime so he shouldn't be allowed to have any day-to-day activities in the MLB.
posted by jasonspaceman at 08:32 AM on January 06, 2004
There is a rule saying you can't bet on baseball, especially not your own team.
Where does it say that betting on your own team is worse?
posted by rcade at 08:45 AM on January 06, 2004
Um, right here, in Major League Baseball Rule 21 (d):
"(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." [emphasis added]
posted by jeffmshaw at 08:58 AM on January 06, 2004
Nice find, Jeff. People not making that distinction don't get why this is such a big deal of an admission. To me, it utterly and absolutely seals his fate. No HOF, no baseball ... just a bad haircut and begging duty at autograph tables for the rest of his life.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:07 AM on January 06, 2004
I couldn't agree more. Derek Zumsteg has some new thoughts on the Rose case that I think are worth reading, too.
posted by jeffmshaw at 09:11 AM on January 06, 2004
If Rose hadn't bet on baseball, (and then lied about it) he would have been an automatic Hall of Faimer-- and a jerk. The Hall was never going to change the fact that he was a jerk, just like his plaque wouldn't have shown him with a decent haircut. His accomplishments on the field-- not least the hits record-- would have been enough to overcome his personality deficits. But let's face it, Rose was never the sort of player that was universally loved-- he ended Ray Fosse's career (because he was a jerk), and this Bud Harrelson fan is never going to admit to more than respect for Rose's doggedness-- because he is a jerk. You could go around the league-- fans in every city will have a story about Rose that illustrates that he was a jerk. You could see past that because he played the game hard, but once he stepped over the line, (and lied about it for fourteen years), well, you should pardon the expression, but all bets were off. Pete Rose does not belong in the Hall of Fame. He believed in the game so passionately that he allowed it to consume him, then he broke faith with it. You don't get to be an immortal when you break faith-- you get left, like Moses, standing outside looking in.
posted by outside counsel at 11:12 AM on January 06, 2004
I say no to the HOF or reinstatement.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:21 AM on January 06, 2004
I say no to the HOF or reinstatement.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:21 AM on January 06, 2004
twice!
posted by jerseygirl at 11:21 AM on January 06, 2004
Damn it, OC ... that was poetic. I won't say it twice, however ... unlike SOME female SpoFiers who shall remain nameless. :P
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:32 AM on January 06, 2004
So now, in addition to his gambling sins, he admits that he's been lying nonstop for 15 years? And this is supposed to make things better?? What hypocrisy.
posted by rushmc at 02:12 PM on January 06, 2004
Is everyone going to feel this adamant about how bad of a person he is once he's gone?
posted by garfield at 02:38 PM on January 06, 2004
Most likely, yes. I can see the SpoFi eulogy going something like this. "Hell of a player, but not a great guy personality wise. Just too bad he fucked himself and his legacy with crimes against the game"
posted by jerseygirl at 02:46 PM on January 06, 2004
Speaking for myself, yes. Ty Cobb's dead, isn't he?
posted by jeffmshaw at 03:11 PM on January 06, 2004
Would it influence your opinion if I said I bet on a poker game in which I played, but everyone thought the game was just for fun? I guess I don't get this whole thing. Once any sport is professionalized, pretty much all innocences can be thrown out the door...because there is always more at play, than just the game. And what joan of rcade, salmacis, and bill said.
posted by garfield at 03:31 PM on January 06, 2004
I guess that depends garf. Did you have control over all the cards and how they were dealt and when? Here's the thing. Rose bet on games that his team was involved in. He says he didn't bet against his team, but who is to say he's telling the truth? He lied for 15 years. Sorry, he loses credibility. As manager, he was essentially puppet master of that team, controlling the whats and wheres, the whens and hows. I can't think of an easier bet/win for him than betting against the team he has total control over. What you are saying (essentially) is you bet on a game that you could not navigate the outcome of personally (poker). It's different than Rose's situation.
posted by jerseygirl at 03:47 PM on January 06, 2004
I can sum it all up right here. Pete Rose, sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!
posted by lilnemo at 04:05 PM on January 06, 2004
What you are saying (essentially) is you bet on a game that you could not navigate the outcome of personally (poker).
I have plenty of influence on the outcome, but not absolute control. Same for Pete. Pete wasn't on the field making plays. His management could've only done so much to influence the outcome.
posted by garfield at 04:16 PM on January 06, 2004
Oh, please. If you aren't the dealer, the poker analogy fails miserably and catastrophically; even if you are the dealer, it merely fails miserably. Here's why:
*The manager does have absolute control over what players are used and when. Like a poker dealer, he doesn't have control over what others involved in the game do -- but he has absolute control over an integral part of the game. As Jayson Stark just noted, "if a manager has a couple of thousand bucks riding on any given game, his perspective on everything changes. Is he really caring about what's best for his team, over the long haul, that night? Does it matter that if he's already used his closer three nights in a row and probably ought to give him a break? Can he really afford to give his cleanup man the night off the day after he's tweaked a hamstring? Heck, no. All he sees are the dollar signs at stake in that game. Which raises a million questions about everything that goes on."
*Plus, even being a poker dealer wouldn't give you as much control over the outcome of a hand as a baseball manager has over the outcome of a game. Managers know who hits well in what situations, what pitchers are overworked, etc.; dealers don't have any prior information about the cards they distribute -- unless they use a marked deck, something I bet Rose is familiar with, too.
posted by jeffmshaw at 04:33 PM on January 06, 2004
And now Rose's pal reports that he's still lying:
"Yes, absolutely he bet from the clubhouse,'' said Tommy Gioiosa, a New Bedford native who met the disgraced All Star in 1978 and became Rose's confidant, housemate and runner for bets for the next 10 years. Gioiosa said he sat in Rose's office when he was manager of the Reds and Rose would call other managers in both leagues in the guise of "shooting the (breeze).'' "He'd call (Tigers' manager) Sparky (Anderson), (Dodgers' manager) Tommy Lasorda, asking about how their pitchers were, who was playing and stuff and then he'd hang up, laughing like a kid, saying like, `I got good information,' '' said Gioiosa, who now lives in Florida.I got no tolerance for Pete Rose. None. He damages the integrity of the game.
posted by Bryant at 04:34 PM on January 06, 2004
Absolute control? What players are used and when? Just as I can discard or hold or bluff or...You play with with the hand you're dealt, and a spade is still a spade, meaning there will always be something Rose couldn't have influenced. The degree of control is debatable, ad infinitum.
posted by garfield at 04:51 PM on January 06, 2004
With respect, that misses the point entirely. Neither a poker player nor a poker dealer nor a baseball manager can 100% control the outcome of the game. However, a baseball manager can control many, many things about the process of a game that a poker player could not. Plus, as Stark notes, managers can be tempted to overuse certain players in games they've got money on, undermining the team's long-term success. This isn't true in poker, where you get a fresh hand every time.
Not to mention that the poker analogy ignores the most important factor: conflict of interest. A poker player is always trying to win every hand. If a baseball manager is trying to win the games he's bet on more than all the other games, that corrupts the integrity of the entire season, and indeed the sport itself.
There's just no comparison between an individual's play in a card game designed for betting and gambling and a manager's conduct in a team game that gambling nearly brought down once.
posted by jeffmshaw at 05:48 PM on January 06, 2004
Theme for Pete's candidacy for the HoF: I fought the law and the law won....
posted by lilnemo at 05:51 PM on January 06, 2004
Jeff, you wanna play poker?
However, a baseball manager can control many, many things about the process of a game that a poker player could not.
Jeff, you miss my point. Yes, a card player doesn't warm up the bullpen too early, or whatever managerial mechanism you want to cite. But control is exercised to influence the outcome of the game. That is the only definitive level of comparison.
The rest is, as I said, debatable.
However, your last point is very well taken.
I was considering the betting past and present as rationalizations to diminish Pete's sins to the game.
posted by garfield at 06:39 PM on January 06, 2004
lilnemo: No Duh. Duh is a product of fear.
posted by jerseygirl at 06:40 PM on January 06, 2004
Sure, garfield, I'll play poker. SpoFi fantasy poker, anyone?
or real poker, even ...
posted by jeffmshaw at 07:28 PM on January 06, 2004
This column by Michael Dowd contains a couple interesting points, including this:
My point is this -- a simple agreement to admit a mistake should never get anyone immediate satisfaction. When a 20-year financial firm employee pleads guilty to insider trading, he never gets right back on the corporate horse. He serves his time, then struggles to get a second chance at glory. That guy has a stain on his resume, which in most cases would keep him away from the Morgan Stanleys and Bear Sternses of the world. He'd start anew at nickel and dime operations ... if he started at all.
Exactly what I said today in an editorial I wrote about how saying you're sorry (especially in the fashion Rose did after 15 years of lying) doesn't necessarily forgive the original sin entirely. Folks, just remember that beating Jim Gray took after asking Rose if he would admit to gambling on his team at the All-Century Team gathering. Rose stood there, stonefaced, and said he'd never admit to something that didn't happen. Now check your credibility level. from garfield on playing poker vs. managing a baseball team: I have plenty of influence on the outcome, but not absolute control. Same for Pete. Pete wasn't on the field making plays. His management could've only done so much to influence the outcome.
Actually, Garf, he did. Remember that Rose was a player-manager, the last in the bigs, for the first three years he was with Cincy. Also bear in mind that after the first year, his stats pretty much sucked ass. It was a relatively common sentiment Pete was hurting the Reds by not finding someone else to play first base, as he had absolutely no power at this point. Twelve doubles in more than 400 ABs? Two home runs?
Rose had Cesar Cedeno, Tony Perez and Nick Esasky (pre-vertigo) on the 1985 team that finished second, and he thought he was the best choice to play first? Five different people (including Davey Freaking Concepcion for 10 games!) played first in 1986 while Rose hit .219 and broke the record. None of these guys was a world-beater, but they all played at least as well, if not markedly better, than Rose in a season when they again finished second.
What does all this mean? It means 1) the idea that Rose had no direct influence on games is wrong and 2) Pete's choice to play himself in many instances (including well after the record was broken) is questionable at best. Am I saying Rose put himself into games to throw them? No. But with his past track record, is it a possibility you have to consider?
Yes, it is.
posted by wfrazerjr at 07:56 PM on January 06, 2004
This situation is perfect fodder for a standup comedian, especially one with a tendency to the mean: "Pete Rose, you lying motherfucker. You lied to us for 20 years and think that some half-assed book apology makes up for it. You want in the Hall of Fame? You want to manage again? Tell you what, why don't you crawl up the Red's mascot's ass and manage the ball team of lice that live there? You can get into the Hall of Fame when the lice beat the amoeba for the Ass Crack championship. How about that Hall of Fame, you lying motherfucker?" Of course I'm not a standup comedian and I don't have a mean bone in my body.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:23 PM on January 06, 2004
Rose is about as classless a human being as you can find. I'm saddened that words are still spent on this miserable man and shocked there are still people who support him. If they do allow him in the hall, and I'm preparing myself for that awful eventuality, I hope it comes with the precondition that he never steps foot in a MLB stadium again except as a paying customer. Letting Rose do anything more is like allowing a kid to roam free in a candy store. Pure stupidity.
posted by justgary at 02:33 AM on January 07, 2004
There's no evidence that Pete Rose bet against the Reds while managing them, so the suggestion that he put himself in games to throw them is -- while funny -- far-fetched.
That guy has a stain on his resume, which in most cases would keep him away from the Morgan Stanleys and Bear Sternses of the world. He'd start anew at nickel and dime operations ... if he started at all.
The lifetime ban from baseball prevents Rose from working his way up from the bottom.
Besides, if Morgan Stanley wanted to hire a disgraced stock trader (just as Carl Lindner allegedly wants to hire Rose), why shouldn't that be possible? His 15-year punishment is far longer than anything imposed on any of the high-profile stock and business fraudsters. I don't get why so many people believe there should be no second chances in baseball.
posted by rcade at 06:53 AM on January 07, 2004
There's no evidence that Pete Rose bet against the Reds while managing them
is there clear evidence that he didn't bet against them?
posted by jerseygirl at 07:03 AM on January 07, 2004
Besides, if Morgan Stanley wanted to hire a disgraced stock trader (just as Carl Lindner allegedly wants to hire Rose), why shouldn't that be possible?
As an investor, would you want your money handled by someone convicted of fraud/embezzlement?
As a company, would you want people to know you have someone with that history, handling other people's money?
on preview: is there clear evidence that he didn't bet against them?
Well, that's one of those hard-to-prove things.
It's hard to have clear evidence about the non-existance of something.
Just like the yeti; no one has found one yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so you can't claim that as evidence.
All that the Dowd report states is that they found evidence that suggests he placed bets on the Reds when he was managing.
I'm sure that if they found evidence of him betting AGAINST the Reds, it would be the centrepiece of their case against Pete Rose.
For the record, I don't believe the yeti exist. It was just to use as an example.
posted by grum@work at 07:08 AM on January 07, 2004
is there clear evidence that he didn't bet against them? That's not how this country is supposed to work, Jerseygirl. If any of Rose's legion of detractors had a scintilla of evidence he bet against the Reds, they would have run with it.
As an investor, would you want your money handled by someone convicted of fraud/embezzlement?
No. But the Reds owner and a majority of Reds fans want Pete Rose. Why should the rest of us protect them from making that choice, just as an investor would be free to rely on a disgraced stock fraudster who returned to the industry after the term of his punishment expired?
posted by rcade at 08:07 AM on January 07, 2004
There's no evidence that Pete Rose bet against the Reds while managing them, so the suggestion that he put himself in games to throw them is -- while funny -- far-fetched.
I agree, rcade. But I'm also not naive enough to think that a guy who was willing to put a Hall of Fame career on the line by betting from the clubhouse and just might have had a teeny bit of a gambling problem wouldn't have at least considered it. Your siding with Rose as being able to draw the line somewhere. All I ask is for you to show me a line he hasn't crossed.
Why should the rest of us protect them from making that choice, just as an investor would be free to rely on a disgraced stock fraudster who returned to the industry after the term of his punishment expired?
Because the Reds are part of a bigger organization, rcade. They don't stand alone, nor would they be the only people affected by the hiring of Rose. If it was a Cincinatti team rule he broke, fine, let them decide. But it wasn't. There is a very clearly stated major-league rule about gambling on your own team, for or against. There's also a very clear punishment. Why would you just throw that all out the window? Also, if I found out an investment firm that handled my money had hired a former embezzler, I'd pull my money out of that company and move to one that didn't hire cheats. How exactly do I do that with the Reds? I already don't root for them. Now I have to wonder every time they play the Cardinals if Pete's throwing the game?
I don't get why so many people believe there should be no second chances in baseball.
I don't get why so many people believe there should be second chances for cheats. You want to let the guy in because you feel sorry for him, you think his 4,000+ hits make up for the baseball equivalent of murder (and that's what it is, don't shake your head at me), go ahead, I guess. But don't expect the rest of us who think someone who admits to breaking the one rule you can't break deserves a second chance. This isn't just about Pete Rose. I'd be taking the same stance if evidence suddenly surfaced about Stan Musial, Ted Williams or any of the other grand old men of the game. Jackass or no jackass, the rule's been broken. Live with the consequences you knew were there.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:12 AM on January 07, 2004
I don't feel sorry for Rose; I feel like his 15-year punishment is sufficient. Even if it was the "baseball equivalent of murder," a completely overwrought metaphor for a person who broke the rules of a children's game by engaging in an activity practiced by millions, some murderers serve less than 15 years.
posted by rcade at 09:17 AM on January 07, 2004
From the Boston Herald: But former Commissioner Fay Vincent, who oversaw the investigation into Rose's gambling as deputy commissioner under Giamatti, said Rose's mea culpa is half-hearted at best and is aimed at only maximizing the baseball outcast's earning power.
``I don't think he's at all contrite,'' Vincent said in a telephone interview yesterday. ``I hope Bud doesn't reinstate him. (Rose) trashed the game. It's all about money for Pete. He concluded it was in his best interest to lie for 14 years.''
Vincent said that had Rose come clean when he was first confronted, baseball officials would have gotten him the help he needed.
Perhaps if he admitted it straight away or soon after, maybe after that if he immediately showed some sort of contrition or self-reproach for doing it, I'd feel differently. But to lie for 15 years about it and then come out with a book for personal profit... and expect everyone to look upon his decade and a half of lying and reward lying on top of the gambling with reinstatement and/or Hall of Fame eligibility? Sorry, no. More from the Herald article. Corked bats, more on cheating: Gioiosa said Rose never saw betting on baseball as cheating, adding the slap hitter also never saw putting cork in his bat near the end of his career as cheating either.
``I know Pete Rose did not bet on baseball to cheat,'' said Gioiosa, who claims he helped doctor Rose's bats. ``Pete Rose corked his bat and he never thought of that as cheating . . . I think that any time you have an addiction, and as out of control as it was back then, no one was thinking clearly. I think Pete loved to win - in everything.''
That's not how this country is supposed to work, Jerseygirl.
agreed. however, he lied about it up and down for what, 15 years? He hawked fake rings, he sold forged goods. You'll have to forgive me if i cast a suspicious eye on all things Pete Rose.
But I'm also not naive enough to think that a guy who was willing to put a Hall of Fame career on the line by betting from the clubhouse and just might have had a teeny bit of a gambling problem wouldn't have at least considered it.
Good point. I don't think Pete Rose deserves a second chance. He knew the rules, they were plain as day, he broke them and lied about what he did for 15 years.
MLB does not have room for second chances. As is, they are already under scrutiny for just about mismanaging everything else. This would be like the league punching itself in the face.
posted by jerseygirl at 09:53 AM on January 07, 2004
If Pete Rose doesn't like the lifetime ban he got, he shouldn't have agreed to it 15 years ago. We must not go back on the consequences we've agreed upon. Are we not men?
posted by rocketman at 09:58 AM on January 07, 2004
Even if it was the "baseball equivalent of murder," a completely overwrought metaphor for a person who broke the rules of a children's game by engaging in an activity practiced by millions, some murderers serve less than 15 years.
It's not overwrought it fits the context of the argument. You frame the words to the situation, rcade, you know that. Is it harsh? Yes. Did it get your attention and make my point? Apparently so. Of course I agree they aren't of the same severity. My whole point was summed up by rocketman the man was wrong, he's still wrong and he agreed to the ban. A tainted apology now takes precedence over all of that? and btw ...
I feel like his 15-year punishment is sufficient ... some murderers serve less than 15 years.
Yeah, perhaps I should rethink my position on this, seeing as the guy who murdered one of my best friends in high school by stabbing through the heart some 15 years ago was released this past summer. Gee, is it time to let bygones be bygones?
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:32 AM on January 07, 2004
No. But the Reds owner and a majority of Reds fans want Pete Rose.
Luckily for us, MLB isn't run by the Reds owner nor their fans (its run bad enough as is). The fact that the majority may be all for Rose's return doesn't make it right, or good for baseball. The majority of American's may have voted against giving women the right to vote. Doesn't make it the correct decision (uneven comparison I know). Baseball is bigger than Rose, bigger than the Reds, and his return to baseball should be based on what it does to the league, not some fan vote or owner's opinion.
posted by justgary at 10:46 AM on January 07, 2004
I think Selig should be banned for life.
posted by garfield at 03:29 PM on January 07, 2004
Seconded.
posted by rocketman at 04:38 PM on January 07, 2004
....and to back up rcade's comments above regarding the financial industry. This heel is only gonna get 10 years.
posted by garfield at 06:45 PM on January 07, 2004
Rose finally came clean because he wants to be reinstated and once again be a part of the game he loves. Of course, he could have confessed in a two-paragraph press release instead of a 288 page memoir available now in hardcover at amazon.com. But the latter is far more profitable.
posted by ebest at 07:19 AM on January 10, 2004
would this affect his banishment positively (lifting the ban) or negatively (essentially ending speculation that he'd ever be able to return or eligible for the HOF)?