Perhaps, in light of all the angst directed towards Pete Rose, there should be a reassessment of all current HOF members whose transgressions were overlooked during their relevant time. It is not a Hall filled with Choir Boys.
@Maywood said:
Perhaps, in light of all the angst directed towards Pete Rose, there should be a reassessment of all current HOF members whose transgressions were overlooked during their relevant time. It is not a Hall filled with Choir Boys.
The gap between "Choir Boys" and Pete Rose is light years across and there is room for virtually every baseball player - and 99% of humanity - to fit between them. To think that Rose is not in the HOF because he didn't meet the Choir Boy standard is to completely miss the point.
If you were to go back and reassess every player banned from the HOF and those who are in it, you would find that they banned the correct people and that those who brought the most disgrace to baseball are the only ones excluded. The only glaring mistake, in my opinion, is that Punkinhead has not been formally banned, although I join all baseball fans in giving the voters a standing O for leaving him out (so far).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Maywood said:
Perhaps, in light of all the angst directed towards Pete Rose, there should be a reassessment of all current HOF members whose transgressions were overlooked during their relevant time. It is not a Hall filled with Choir Boys.
Youd have to clean out the HOF if that happened. Theres literally voters that voted for Ortiz who was suspended for a failed PED drug test during his career that wont vote for anyone else of that era. Mantle used PEDs and ended up on the DL because of them as another example. That doesnt even get into the whole moral aspects of things that are not speculation for countless players.
The big problem with the HOF is that people pick and choose which players to apply the standards too and give players they like a pass.
@Maywood said:
Perhaps, in light of all the angst directed towards Pete Rose, there should be a reassessment of all current HOF members whose transgressions were overlooked during their relevant time. It is not a Hall filled with Choir Boys.
The gap between "Choir Boys" and Pete Rose is light years across and there is room for virtually every baseball player - and 99% of humanity - to fit between them. To think that Rose is not in the HOF because he didn't meet the Choir Boy standard is to completely miss the point.
If you were to go back and reassess every player banned from the HOF and those who are in it, you would find that they banned the correct people and that those who brought the most disgrace to baseball are the only ones excluded. The only glaring mistake, in my opinion, is that Punkinhead has not been formally banned, although I join all baseball fans in giving the voters a standing O for leaving him out (so far).
Yet you have no problem with the inclusion of the litany of players who openly used amphetamines.
The hypocrisy of people here is off the charts.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Maywood said:
Perhaps, in light of all the angst directed towards Pete Rose, there should be a reassessment of all current HOF members whose transgressions were overlooked during their relevant time. It is not a Hall filled with Choir Boys.
Youd have to clean out the HOF if that happened. Theres literally voters that voted for Ortiz who was suspended for a failed PED drug test during his career that wont vote for anyone else of that era. Mantle used PEDs and ended up on the DL because of them as another example. That doesnt even get into the whole moral aspects of things that are not speculation for countless players.
The big problem with the HOF is that people pick and choose which players to apply the standards too and give players they like a pass.
You are right.
Bonds was a jerk - that much is not up to debate. As such, he's demonized for simply being the best player of all time who also happened to use PEDs. An incredible stat is if you took away Bonds' 7 seasons, he would still have 440 HRs and 359 stolen bases. Again, he was a jerk, so the "righteous" here are happy to see him excluded from the hall.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Maywood said:
Perhaps, in light of all the angst directed towards Pete Rose, there should be a reassessment of all current HOF members whose transgressions were overlooked during their relevant time. It is not a Hall filled with Choir Boys.
Youd have to clean out the HOF if that happened. Theres literally voters that voted for Ortiz who was suspended for a failed PED drug test during his career that wont vote for anyone else of that era. Mantle used PEDs and ended up on the DL because of them as another example. That doesnt even get into the whole moral aspects of things that are not speculation for countless players.
The big problem with the HOF is that people pick and choose which players to apply the standards too and give players they like a pass.
You are right.
Bonds was a jerk - that much is not up to debate. As such, he's demonized for simply being the best player of all time who also happened to use PEDs. An incredible stat is if you took away Bonds' 7 seasons, he would still have 440 HRs and 359 stolen bases. Again, he was a jerk, so the "righteous" here are happy to see him excluded from the hall.
As I said the problem is that people pick and choose who to apply standards too you included. You cant have it both ways. You argue against Schilling for politics but then for other players. If Schilling can be excluded for politics than other players can be excluded for whatever reason as well
My stance is simple, they should all be in and judged off of their on field performance. They should either all be in or none should be in
^^^^^^^this. we can only go off from on field performance. we will never know the extent of all the players who used and the effects, both positive and negative, for individual players.
It seems that in the past, Society overlooked flaws in a person's personal life to a higher degree than people are willing to do today. Now, a more rounded view of a people is expected, hence, my "Choir Boy" comment. That's what Society wants and it's demonstrated by the current era of "Cancel Culture" behavior. Nobody is exempt and the score sheet used today is enhanced by modern technology. If you've done something in your past, no matter how long ago or how much penance you've performed, if discovered, you are at risk of exclusion from pretty much everything.
Somewhere in the 1960's and early 1970's the change happened. It took awhile, maybe on the order of 20-30 years, but MLB has been sanitized. For everyone's edification I post the following synopsis:
--- In 1989 NL Commissioner Bart Giamatti and Pete Rose reached an agreement, Rose was banned for life and MLB agreed to not make a formal determination on whether he had bet on baseball......................Special Counsel John Dowd investigated the allegations and concluded that Rose had indeed bet on baseball --- but --- was unable to find incontrovertible evidence of this.
Immediately after the agreement was a done deal, Giamatti violated it and then died a few days later.
My stance is simple, they should all be in and judged off of their on field performance. They should either all be in or none should be in
I think your simple stance is perhaps too simple.
I think that it's inevitable for voters to consider aspects of a player which are not directly associated with on-field play. I also think it's fine to consider a wider scope than just a player's on-field performance alone - enshrined HOF members are also ambassadors. The criteria are also left open to consideration by the individual voters.
There are no rules save for the clause that stipulates “voting should be based upon a player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played,” and no formal discussion about the candidates.
So I'm not against criteria related to some of those more general aspects of the player, such as; integrity and character, but I would say that I disagree with voters withholding their vote for reasons such as 'political disagreements' in the case of Schilling. I also object to voters withholding their vote for players who used PEDs - both caught and suspected.
The argument to void objectional politics (from the voters perspective) from impacting their vote would require one of those same things of HOF voters that we're looking for in HOF members; integrity. Sold out on Amazon currently.
The argument I would make regarding PEDs is simply that MLB created the environment where this could occur, they knew there was a pervasive issue in the league, and they didn't do anything about it until social sentiment shifted. With players who didn't dope at a disadvantage to those that did there was a significant percentage of MLB rosters which were using some form of illegal, soon-to-be-banned-officially, substance. I think that this created a performance shift across MLB that allows us to separate the wheat from the chaff. They certainly knew what they were doing was illegal, and at some point banned by MLB, but to say that MLB isn't accountable here is difficult for me to accept.
I know there are different opinions on the PED players, and I've heard a lot of well-reasoned opinions on why they should be kept out of the MLB HOF. I think those are good opinions that I also happen to disagree with.
Not when it comes to cheating on the game, such as intentionally trying to lose. It's as strict today as it was during the time of the Black Sox scandal. That is not going to change.
Players gambling on MLB games will continue to be banned, with harsh penalties for violating this coveted rule.
MLB wanted to have its cake and eat it too when it came to PED use.
Intentionally looking the other way as the league as a whole bulked up on PEDs because, as Nike so infamously said 'chicks dig the long ball'. Everyone with a pulse knew what was going on and cheered. Even the curmudgeons here who want to denigrate players as 'Punkinhead' were cheering and knowing that these players were doping. They, too, dug the long ball.
Then, these same 'fans' and MLB as a whole feigned outrage and claimed there was no way to know players were using and abusing these substances, turning their backs on the same generation of players who saved the sport from greedy billionaire owners who shut the sport down in 1994.
Likewise, Pete Rose was and is an incredibly flawed person. Of course, he vehemently denied betting on the sport - because what guilty person would own up immediately to it? Stats aside (80 career WAR puts him 67th and clearly HoF worthy), but for a museum to have the all-time hits and HR kings, as well as the pitcher with the most Cy Young awards all excluded? This place is a joke, meant to cater to the holier-than-thous who have shown their faces in this thread.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Pete Rose is not excluded from the MLB HOF Museum, but he is not enshrined and does not have a plaque in the hall of plaques.
I only mention this, again, and again, and again, and one more time, because it's been repeated that the museum has him excluded. I guess it's time to assume that these things are being conflated intentionally, and with strategic purpose.
I think he has a much better shot then. Not sure what the outcome will be but I think his odds do improve. Somewhat morbid to consider but.. is what it is.
@bgr said:
Pete Rose is not excluded from the MLB HOF Museum, but he is not enshrined and does not have a plaque in the hall of plaques.
I only mention this, again, and again, and again, and one more time, because it's been repeated that the museum has him excluded. I guess it's time to assume that these things are being conflated intentionally, and with strategic purpose.
He's not enshrined.
He should be.
Any argument to the contrary is fallacious.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Not when it comes to cheating on the game, such as intentionally trying to lose. It's as strict today as it was during the time of the Black Sox scandal. That is not going to change.
Players gambling on MLB games will continue to be banned, with harsh penalties for violating this coveted rule.
More organizations are intentionally trying to lose than ever before. The Cubs are 39-46 and only 5 games out of a wild card spot. Other rthan the White Sox, A's, Marlins and Rockies everyone whose not a division leader is basically right around .500. The As story was literally the plot of Major League the movie except in real life rosters like that dont rally to win the division and mess up the plan to move the team
@bgr said:
he is not enshrined and does not have a plaque in the hall of plaques.
Some say that Pete will finally get in, but only posthumously.
That ain't gonna happen either.
Honestly it really only matters for the HOF credibility at this point. Everyone knows Louisville won the basketball title, USC won the football title and that Rose had a HOF career. Younger and younger generations care less and less about writers votes and things like that and more about what actually happened.
Look at the NBA HOF its in a strip mall. Its up to the HOFs to convince people their opinion matters and the MLB one has been doing a great job the last decade convincing people it doesnt
OCTOBER 18, 2018
The four major sports leagues will earn a collective $4.2 billion from widely available legal sports betting, further proving that working together with the gaming industry will pay dividends for all sports stakeholders. Legal sports betting will also create substantial opportunities for state and local economies, generating tax revenue, jobs and supporting small businesses across the country.
The study analyzes the revenue streams that legal sports betting could generate for both professional leagues: revenue as a result of spending from betting operators on advertising, data and sponsorship, and revenue generated as a result of increased consumption of the leagues’ media and products.
This above was from 2018, and I'm sure it's gone up since then.
However if the public perception becomes that some or more games are rigged, then gamblers won't bet nearly as much on the games. The drop could become quite precipitous. Costing the sports leagues countless amounts of money. That is a stone cold fact.
Professional sports is not about to possibly allow this to happen. Certainly not exonerating Pete Rose.
I love when people say 'case closed' as if they are somehow have the final say.
Actually, no, I don't love it. It's annoying, condescending, and apt that a Philly fan would say it, when they are the epitome of bad sports fan behavior.
What's hilarious is the perception from loudmouthed, 'hard core' sports fans think they make up a majority of the audience, when in fact, they're nothing but a vocal minority. The casual fan, which make up an overwhelming majority of the overall sports audience (particularly the NFL) care nothing about anything in this thread.
Fans have screamed 'rigged!' for years when their team loses, before and after sports betting became legal. Enshrining Rose to the hall would have literally zero effect on the dollars gambled. Therefore, the ban should be lifted, he should be enshrined, as well as McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens, Then, maybe, MLB would begin to restore some of its legitimacy. Until then? They are as fraudulent as the NCAA.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Mistlin said:
I love when people say 'case closed' as if they are somehow have the final say.
Actually, no, I don't love it. It's annoying, condescending, and apt that a Philly fan would say it, when they are the epitome of bad sports fan behavior.
What's hilarious is the perception from loudmouthed, 'hard core' sports fans think they make up a majority of the audience, when in fact, they're nothing but a vocal minority. The casual fan, which make up an overwhelming majority of the overall sports audience (particularly the NFL) care nothing about anything in this thread.
Fans have screamed 'rigged!' for years when their team loses, before and after sports betting became legal. Enshrining Rose to the hall would have literally zero effect on the dollars gambled. Therefore, the ban should be lifted, he should be enshrined, as well as McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens, Then, maybe, MLB would begin to restore some of its legitimacy. Until then? They are as fraudulent as the NCAA.
@Maywood said:
It seems that in the past, Society overlooked flaws in a person's personal life to a higher degree than people are willing to do today.
When was the time when fooling around with minors was "overlooked"? Pretty sure we took it a whole lot more seriously in the past than we have with Rose. That Rose never went to prison is his reward, and for him (or anyone else) to whine about his not being honored borders on disgusting.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I’m fine with him getting in posthumous ly. There’s still some uncertainty as to the particular shade of obscenity. Unless you’re aware of some evidence I’m not. We know there’s a statement accusing him because there was a statement that there is. But I’ve never seen the statement and it’s sealed in the Dowd case.
He’s a sleaze-ball, a dope, and a man of low character. But maybe not quite a monster.
He’s a sleaze-ball, a dope, and a man of low character.
They could engrave that on his HOF plaque and lower the honor associated with being in the HOF down into the gutter. Why that would make some of you happy is beyond me. Pete Rose is precisely the kind of person the HOF founders were thinking of when they made "character" a HOF requirement, and they were, very obviously, correct to do so.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
In a few generations no one will care he bet on baseball his will just be known as the hit king. People will forget and move on. But his stats will not be forgotten.
He’s a sleaze-ball, a dope, and a man of low character.
They could engrave that on his HOF plaque and lower the honor associated with being in the HOF down into the gutter. Why that would make some of you happy is beyond me. Pete Rose is precisely the kind of person the HOF founders were thinking of when they made "character" a HOF requirement, and they were, very obviously, correct to do so.
The HOF opened in 1939. The majority of the founders and voters throughout the year would not pass the "character" test that they impose on others. "Character" is just an excuse for them to not vote for anyone they dont want to
Either every player, owner, coach, writer, and voter including current ones needs to be removed (or lose their vote) that cant pass the "character" test or they should be evaluated based on what they did for the game and let higher powers sort out their morality. Everyone should have the same standards applied to them in the HOF, not this picking and choosing
All the accusations about gambling and anything else are really meaningless to anyone but haters and hardcore fans. If these things were undeniable facts backed by incontrovertible evidence and third party testimony, why has there never been any sort of prosecution for all the transgressions?? Hearsay testimony is useless, cancel culture is alive and well and much of this thread is little more than slander.
@stevek said:
It's absolutely hilarious how some out there idolize sports stars to the point whereby their "heroes" can do no wrong. 😆
Even more hilarious are the mental gymnastics people will twist themselves into to idolize one person while condemning another when both are guilty of the same thing.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
He’s a sleaze-ball, a dope, and a man of low character.
They could engrave that on his HOF plaque and lower the honor associated with being in the HOF down into the gutter. Why that would make some of you happy is beyond me. Pete Rose is precisely the kind of person the HOF founders were thinking of when they made "character" a HOF requirement, and they were, very obviously, correct to do so.
But you have no issue with the known racists who were inducted into the same hall. Got it. It's clear the type of behavior you are on board with.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@stevek said:
It's absolutely hilarious how some out there idolize sports stars to the point whereby their "heroes" can do no wrong. 😆
Even more hilarious are the mental gymnastics people will twist themselves into to idolize one person while condemning another when both are guilty of the same thing.
I just saw you're trying to sell your Pete Rose set on BST. Good luck with that.
"Hi everyone,
Beginning to sell off my collection, starting with my Rose basic set. 1978 to 1987, all PSA 9, only missing 1979 and 1986/87 Leaf. Asking $500 (APR value $542) or best offer.
Thanks for looking!"
@stevek said:
It's absolutely hilarious how some out there idolize sports stars to the point whereby their "heroes" can do no wrong. 😆
I do not believe many humans do no wrong (some try very hard not to) and no I do not idolize ANY human I just appreciate what they have done or are doing nothing more.
@Maywood said:
All the accusations about gambling and anything else are really meaningless to anyone but haters and hardcore fans. If these things were undeniable facts backed by incontrovertible evidence and third party testimony, why has there never been any sort of prosecution for all the transgressions?? Hearsay testimony is useless, cancel culture is alive and well and much of this thread is little more than slander.
You're dismissing the gambling stuff? Strange. Rose has admitted to it.
@Maywood said:
All the accusations about gambling and anything else are really meaningless to anyone but haters and hardcore fans. If these things were undeniable facts backed by incontrovertible evidence and third party testimony, why has there never been any sort of prosecution for all the transgressions?? Hearsay testimony is useless, cancel culture is alive and well and much of this thread is little more than slander.
Pete admitted to betting on baseball in his book.
Pete also spent time in jail for failure to report income.
Statute of limitations has passed on his affair with at least one underage girl.
These are facts.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Maywood said:
All the accusations about gambling and anything else are really meaningless to anyone but haters and hardcore fans. If these things were undeniable facts backed by incontrovertible evidence and third party testimony, why has there never been any sort of prosecution for all the transgressions?? Hearsay testimony is useless, cancel culture is alive and well and much of this thread is little more than slander.
Why did Pete Rose agree to a lifetime ban? If you can't answer that question, then you're not a serious person and there's no reason for me to care what your opinion might be. But if you can, then the answer to that question will clear up why Pete Rose isn't in the HOF, never will be in the HOF, and why arguments that he should be are so profoundly silly.
And just to be clear, I don't know specifically why Rose agreed to the lifetime ban. What I mean is that no matter what the reason may have been, there was a reason, and any reason you can imagine is enough to cause any reasonable person to understand why Rose will never be in the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Rose didn't agree to a lifetime ban that was going to happen anyways, he accepted it as documents show. The acceptance of it also allowed for applying for reinstatement. Manfred likely wont ever reinstate him. Manfred seems to hold grudges since Bauer is still blackballed even though he was cleared by multiple courts and beat MLB with his suspension in court.
As Pillar stated no one is idolizing him (hopefully not anyways) but its silly to try and ignore what he did as a player
If memory serves, one of the reasons Rose agreed to the lifetime ban was because it involved the cessation of Dowd's investigation into Rose's gambling. The question at that point was not whether Rose had gambled on games he managed for the Cincinnati Reds (anyone with half a brain already knew that), but whether Rose also bet against the Reds while managing them, too. We already know that Rose would not bet on games in which Soto or Gullickson were the starting pitchers, so it's not really a stretch to believe he may have bet against the Reds in those cases, also.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Holds the record for hits, games, at-bats, and second longest hitting streak (tied with Wee Willie Keeler's 1897 streak) sure he's among the greatest. Too bad he blew it from his betting on baseball and not coming clean about it for well over a decade.
In court documents, Rose admitted that he had sex with the female but claimed that he did not do so until 1975, when she was 16 years old, and he was playing for the Cincinnati Reds. The suit would later be dismissed after both sides reached an agreement. In Ohio, 16 years of age is considered the age of consent.
@Maywood said: In court documents, Rose admitted that he had sex with the female but claimed that he did not do so until 1975, when she was 16 years old, and he was playing for the Cincinnati Reds. The suit would later be dismissed after both sides reached an agreement. In Ohio, 16 years of age is considered the age of consent.
Yes. That is a fact. The issue is that woman’s statement regarding her relationship with Rose and the timing. Feel free to dismiss it if you want but I don’t. It’s a sworn statement made to Dowd in a formal setting which detailed a sexual relationship with Rose before she turned 16. This was used as evidence in Dowd’s defamation defense. It’s past the statute of limitations and it seems, from the record, that this is something that woman had put in the past. That doesn’t mean it was legal or because he cannot be convicted that he did nothing wrong. To pretend it doesn’t exist or ignore the information that is available is something I can’t do.
I don’t personally know the details and it’s not my place to judge him. I can’t pretend this is all made up though or ignore it because I haven’t witnessed it personally.
The suit referenced wasn’t a criminal charge for statutory rape brought by Ohio. The suit was a defamation case against Dowd brought by Rose because Dowd made statements regarding this publicly. So in his defamation defense he introduced this sworn statement. At that point heresay becomes evidence.
@Maywood said: In court documents, Rose admitted that he had sex with the female but claimed that he did not do so until 1975, when she was 16 years old, and he was playing for the Cincinnati Reds. The suit would later be dismissed after both sides reached an agreement. In Ohio, 16 years of age is considered the age of consent.
Yes. That is a fact. The issue is that woman’s statement regarding her relationship with Rose and the timing. Feel free to dismiss it if you want but I don’t. It’s a sworn statement made to Dowd in a formal setting which detailed a sexual relationship with Rose before she turned 16. This was used as evidence in Dowd’s defamation defense. It’s past the statute of limitations and it seems, from the record, that this is something that woman had put in the past. That doesn’t mean it was legal or because he cannot be convicted that he did nothing wrong. To pretend it doesn’t exist or ignore the information that is available is something I can’t do.
I don’t personally know the details and it’s not my place to judge him. I can’t pretend this is all made up though or ignore it because I haven’t witnessed it personally.
The suit referenced wasn’t a criminal charge for statutory rape brought by Ohio. The suit was a defamation case against Dowd brought by Rose because Dowd made statements regarding this publicly. So in his defamation defense he introduced this sworn statement. At that point heresay becomes evidence.
And to convict someone of something theres no proof of is something that a lot of us cant do. Countless athletes get accused of things by people looking for money
Hersay is never actual evidence even if its admissible. Show me some actual evidence and sure lock him up forever, until then its just another athlete being accused of something with no proof
@Maywood said: In court documents, Rose admitted that he had sex with the female but claimed that he did not do so until 1975, when she was 16 years old, and he was playing for the Cincinnati Reds. The suit would later be dismissed after both sides reached an agreement. In Ohio, 16 years of age is considered the age of consent.
Yes. That is a fact. The issue is that woman’s statement regarding her relationship with Rose and the timing. Feel free to dismiss it if you want but I don’t. It’s a sworn statement made to Dowd in a formal setting which detailed a sexual relationship with Rose before she turned 16. This was used as evidence in Dowd’s defamation defense. It’s past the statute of limitations and it seems, from the record, that this is something that woman had put in the past. That doesn’t mean it was legal or because he cannot be convicted that he did nothing wrong. To pretend it doesn’t exist or ignore the information that is available is something I can’t do.
I don’t personally know the details and it’s not my place to judge him. I can’t pretend this is all made up though or ignore it because I haven’t witnessed it personally.
The suit referenced wasn’t a criminal charge for statutory rape brought by Ohio. The suit was a defamation case against Dowd brought by Rose because Dowd made statements regarding this publicly. So in his defamation defense he introduced this sworn statement. At that point heresay becomes evidence.
And to convict someone of something theres no proof of is something that a lot of us cant do. Countless athletes get accused of things by people looking for money
Hersay is never actual evidence even if its admissible. Show me some actual evidence and sure lock him up forever, until then its just another athlete being accused of something with no proof
Dowd saying publicly "someone made this statement" is Hearsay.
Dowd introducing a sworn statement by someone who was party to the statement being made is evidence.
Here's the motion that caused Rose to settle quick. He Did Not Want To Be Deposed.
ROSE v. DOWD
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-3681.
I wonder why he settled so quickly after he spent so much $$$ going after Dowd.
Proof is something you have to decide on. Proof and evidence allow us to accept truths, but only proven truths are facts to the observer. This doesn't even speak to what a legal standard of proof is which, itself, varies in different courts.
I'm sure you've heard the opening statement "Prove to me...". This is a good way to explain what proof means. I'm sure, if you think about it, there are countless things that you accept as truths which you wouldn't be able to prove to anyone else who chooses not to accept them as facts.
Then there is a whole spectrum of things which cannot be proven that we accept as truths.
Ethical claims such as "Murder is wrong.".
Statements which cannot be falsified such as "The earth will turn into strawberry jam.".
Anything which requires subjective interpretation like "That's a big mountain.".
Any questions which ponder meaning in abstract ways such as "Why are trees?".
Any circular requirements which are foundational like proving something like "Logic is logical.".
Point is. When someone gives a sworn statement, that can be introduced as evidence and it's not hearsay. If you download the complaint you'll see that the sworn statement, obtained as part of the MLB investigation which appointed Dowd, would meet all of the affidavit requirements in a court of law.
This is one of those cases where I think if people knew the truth, they would be disgusted, but we'll never know, so we can paint it with whatever brush we want. I use gray because it's pretty dark.
@Maywood said: In court documents, Rose admitted that he had sex with the female but claimed that he did not do so until 1975, when she was 16 years old, and he was playing for the Cincinnati Reds. The suit would later be dismissed after both sides reached an agreement. In Ohio, 16 years of age is considered the age of consent.
Yes. That is a fact. The issue is that woman’s statement regarding her relationship with Rose and the timing. Feel free to dismiss it if you want but I don’t. It’s a sworn statement made to Dowd in a formal setting which detailed a sexual relationship with Rose before she turned 16. This was used as evidence in Dowd’s defamation defense. It’s past the statute of limitations and it seems, from the record, that this is something that woman had put in the past. That doesn’t mean it was legal or because he cannot be convicted that he did nothing wrong. To pretend it doesn’t exist or ignore the information that is available is something I can’t do.
I don’t personally know the details and it’s not my place to judge him. I can’t pretend this is all made up though or ignore it because I haven’t witnessed it personally.
The suit referenced wasn’t a criminal charge for statutory rape brought by Ohio. The suit was a defamation case against Dowd brought by Rose because Dowd made statements regarding this publicly. So in his defamation defense he introduced this sworn statement. At that point heresay becomes evidence.
And to convict someone of something theres no proof of is something that a lot of us cant do. Countless athletes get accused of things by people looking for money
Hersay is never actual evidence even if its admissible. Show me some actual evidence and sure lock him up forever, until then its just another athlete being accused of something with no proof
Dowd saying publicly "someone made this statement" is Hearsay.
Dowd introducing a sworn statement by someone who was party to the statement being made is evidence.
Here's the motion that caused Rose to settle quick. He Did Not Want To Be Deposed.
ROSE v. DOWD
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-3681.
I wonder why he settled so quickly after he spent so much $$$ going after Dowd.
Proof is something you have to decide on. Proof and evidence allow us to accept truths, but only proven truths are facts to the observer. This doesn't even speak to what a legal standard of proof is which, itself, varies in different courts.
I'm sure you've heard the opening statement "Prove to me...". This is a good way to explain what proof means. I'm sure, if you think about it, there are countless things that you accept as truths which you wouldn't be able to prove to anyone else who chooses not to accept them as facts.
Then there is a whole spectrum of things which cannot be proven that we accept as truths.
Ethical claims such as "Murder is wrong.".
Statements which cannot be falsified such as "The earth will turn into strawberry jam.".
Anything which requires subjective interpretation like "That's a big mountain.".
Any questions which ponder meaning in abstract ways such as "Why are trees?".
Any circular requirements which are foundational like proving something like "Logic is logical.".
Point is. When someone gives a sworn statement, that can be introduced as evidence and it's not hearsay. If you download the complaint you'll see that the sworn statement, obtained as part of the MLB investigation which appointed Dowd, would meet all of the affidavit requirements in a court of law.
This is one of those cases where I think if people knew the truth, they would be disgusted, but we'll never know, so we can paint it with whatever brush we want. I use gray because it's pretty dark.
People lie in sworn statements and investigations all the time. Hersay, 3rd party evidence whether admissible or not is not hard evidence. Countless people get falsely accused of things. Look what happened to Bauer. In High School a classmate was flasely charged with rape because the girl didnt want to admit she wasnt a virgin. In pro ball I had a teammate accused of rape because the woman was cheating on her fiance and didnt want to admit it. In both cases the falsely accused were found innocent but nothing happened to the woman making the false claims.
Statements are worth about as much as the paper theyre printed on without hard evidence to back it up. Theres a number of reasons why someone might decide to settle. They could either realize no matter what they wont win, or just not want to keep pouring money into etc. The opposition just making it to expensive to continue is a real thing as well.
Cheating on his wife was certainly a scumbag move and hes not the greatest guy ever. The 14 year old stuff is just speculation though.
You can be one of the greatest players of all time without being one of the greatest humans of all time, which is often the case
I think that a majority of people would look at what happened and think differently. I'm sure he's no worse than plenty of hall of fame members, but that doesn't mean he deserves to get in while he's alive - or ever.
Personally, I think he gets enshrined after he's gone and people have mostly forgotten about his transgressions; proven or not.
And with that... the rain has stopped and sun has come out here. Must mean I'm right. Joking!
@bgr said:
It's totally up to you what you want to believe.
I think that a majority of people would look at what happened and think differently. I'm sure he's no worse than plenty of hall of fame members, but that doesn't mean he deserves to get in while he's alive - or ever.
Personally, I think he gets enshrined after he's gone and people have mostly forgotten about his transgressions; proven or not.
And with that... the rain has stopped and sun has come out here. Must mean I'm right. Joking!
I hope Im wrong, but I think he probably never gets in with the direction the HOF has been going with players despite his on field performance and nothing else being deserving of getting in.
Also can you send some of that sunshine over here. Storms have prevented me from grilling all day lol
Since you bring up Bauer so often I will say. I think he should get a 3 year 24 million community service project in Milwaukee. That would propel them.
3 years 24 million isnt anywhere near what hes worth. But hes already said he would sign for league minimum with performance based incentives. There arent 60 pitchers in the league that are better than him and theres certainly not any team who has 5 better starters than him. '
Comments
Perhaps, in light of all the angst directed towards Pete Rose, there should be a reassessment of all current HOF members whose transgressions were overlooked during their relevant time. It is not a Hall filled with Choir Boys.
The gap between "Choir Boys" and Pete Rose is light years across and there is room for virtually every baseball player - and 99% of humanity - to fit between them. To think that Rose is not in the HOF because he didn't meet the Choir Boy standard is to completely miss the point.
If you were to go back and reassess every player banned from the HOF and those who are in it, you would find that they banned the correct people and that those who brought the most disgrace to baseball are the only ones excluded. The only glaring mistake, in my opinion, is that Punkinhead has not been formally banned, although I join all baseball fans in giving the voters a standing O for leaving him out (so far).
Youd have to clean out the HOF if that happened. Theres literally voters that voted for Ortiz who was suspended for a failed PED drug test during his career that wont vote for anyone else of that era. Mantle used PEDs and ended up on the DL because of them as another example. That doesnt even get into the whole moral aspects of things that are not speculation for countless players.
The big problem with the HOF is that people pick and choose which players to apply the standards too and give players they like a pass.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Yet you have no problem with the inclusion of the litany of players who openly used amphetamines.
The hypocrisy of people here is off the charts.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
You are right.
Bonds was a jerk - that much is not up to debate. As such, he's demonized for simply being the best player of all time who also happened to use PEDs. An incredible stat is if you took away Bonds' 7 seasons, he would still have 440 HRs and 359 stolen bases. Again, he was a jerk, so the "righteous" here are happy to see him excluded from the hall.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
As I said the problem is that people pick and choose who to apply standards too you included. You cant have it both ways. You argue against Schilling for politics but then for other players. If Schilling can be excluded for politics than other players can be excluded for whatever reason as well
My stance is simple, they should all be in and judged off of their on field performance. They should either all be in or none should be in
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
^^^^^^^this. we can only go off from on field performance. we will never know the extent of all the players who used and the effects, both positive and negative, for individual players.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It seems that in the past, Society overlooked flaws in a person's personal life to a higher degree than people are willing to do today. Now, a more rounded view of a people is expected, hence, my "Choir Boy" comment. That's what Society wants and it's demonstrated by the current era of "Cancel Culture" behavior. Nobody is exempt and the score sheet used today is enhanced by modern technology. If you've done something in your past, no matter how long ago or how much penance you've performed, if discovered, you are at risk of exclusion from pretty much everything.
Somewhere in the 1960's and early 1970's the change happened. It took awhile, maybe on the order of 20-30 years, but MLB has been sanitized. For everyone's edification I post the following synopsis:
--- In 1989 NL Commissioner Bart Giamatti and Pete Rose reached an agreement, Rose was banned for life and MLB agreed to not make a formal determination on whether he had bet on baseball......................Special Counsel John Dowd investigated the allegations and concluded that Rose had indeed bet on baseball --- but --- was unable to find incontrovertible evidence of this.
Immediately after the agreement was a done deal, Giamatti violated it and then died a few days later.
I think your simple stance is perhaps too simple.
I think that it's inevitable for voters to consider aspects of a player which are not directly associated with on-field play. I also think it's fine to consider a wider scope than just a player's on-field performance alone - enshrined HOF members are also ambassadors. The criteria are also left open to consideration by the individual voters.
So I'm not against criteria related to some of those more general aspects of the player, such as; integrity and character, but I would say that I disagree with voters withholding their vote for reasons such as 'political disagreements' in the case of Schilling. I also object to voters withholding their vote for players who used PEDs - both caught and suspected.
The argument to void objectional politics (from the voters perspective) from impacting their vote would require one of those same things of HOF voters that we're looking for in HOF members; integrity. Sold out on Amazon currently.
The argument I would make regarding PEDs is simply that MLB created the environment where this could occur, they knew there was a pervasive issue in the league, and they didn't do anything about it until social sentiment shifted. With players who didn't dope at a disadvantage to those that did there was a significant percentage of MLB rosters which were using some form of illegal, soon-to-be-banned-officially, substance. I think that this created a performance shift across MLB that allows us to separate the wheat from the chaff. They certainly knew what they were doing was illegal, and at some point banned by MLB, but to say that MLB isn't accountable here is difficult for me to accept.
I know there are different opinions on the PED players, and I've heard a lot of well-reasoned opinions on why they should be kept out of the MLB HOF. I think those are good opinions that I also happen to disagree with.
"MLB has been sanitized"
Not when it comes to cheating on the game, such as intentionally trying to lose. It's as strict today as it was during the time of the Black Sox scandal. That is not going to change.
Players gambling on MLB games will continue to be banned, with harsh penalties for violating this coveted rule.
MLB wanted to have its cake and eat it too when it came to PED use.
Intentionally looking the other way as the league as a whole bulked up on PEDs because, as Nike so infamously said 'chicks dig the long ball'. Everyone with a pulse knew what was going on and cheered. Even the curmudgeons here who want to denigrate players as 'Punkinhead' were cheering and knowing that these players were doping. They, too, dug the long ball.
Then, these same 'fans' and MLB as a whole feigned outrage and claimed there was no way to know players were using and abusing these substances, turning their backs on the same generation of players who saved the sport from greedy billionaire owners who shut the sport down in 1994.
Likewise, Pete Rose was and is an incredibly flawed person. Of course, he vehemently denied betting on the sport - because what guilty person would own up immediately to it? Stats aside (80 career WAR puts him 67th and clearly HoF worthy), but for a museum to have the all-time hits and HR kings, as well as the pitcher with the most Cy Young awards all excluded? This place is a joke, meant to cater to the holier-than-thous who have shown their faces in this thread.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Pete Rose is not excluded from the MLB HOF Museum, but he is not enshrined and does not have a plaque in the hall of plaques.
I only mention this, again, and again, and again, and one more time, because it's been repeated that the museum has him excluded. I guess it's time to assume that these things are being conflated intentionally, and with strategic purpose.
Some say that Pete will finally get in, but only posthumously.
That ain't gonna happen either.
I think he has a much better shot then. Not sure what the outcome will be but I think his odds do improve. Somewhat morbid to consider but.. is what it is.
He's not enshrined.
He should be.
Any argument to the contrary is fallacious.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
More organizations are intentionally trying to lose than ever before. The Cubs are 39-46 and only 5 games out of a wild card spot. Other rthan the White Sox, A's, Marlins and Rockies everyone whose not a division leader is basically right around .500. The As story was literally the plot of Major League the movie except in real life rosters like that dont rally to win the division and mess up the plan to move the team
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Honestly it really only matters for the HOF credibility at this point. Everyone knows Louisville won the basketball title, USC won the football title and that Rose had a HOF career. Younger and younger generations care less and less about writers votes and things like that and more about what actually happened.
Look at the NBA HOF its in a strip mall. Its up to the HOFs to convince people their opinion matters and the MLB one has been doing a great job the last decade convincing people it doesnt
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
OCTOBER 18, 2018
The four major sports leagues will earn a collective $4.2 billion from widely available legal sports betting, further proving that working together with the gaming industry will pay dividends for all sports stakeholders. Legal sports betting will also create substantial opportunities for state and local economies, generating tax revenue, jobs and supporting small businesses across the country.
The study analyzes the revenue streams that legal sports betting could generate for both professional leagues: revenue as a result of spending from betting operators on advertising, data and sponsorship, and revenue generated as a result of increased consumption of the leagues’ media and products.
This above was from 2018, and I'm sure it's gone up since then.
However if the public perception becomes that some or more games are rigged, then gamblers won't bet nearly as much on the games. The drop could become quite precipitous. Costing the sports leagues countless amounts of money. That is a stone cold fact.
Professional sports is not about to possibly allow this to happen. Certainly not exonerating Pete Rose.
Case closed.
I love when people say 'case closed' as if they are somehow have the final say.
Actually, no, I don't love it. It's annoying, condescending, and apt that a Philly fan would say it, when they are the epitome of bad sports fan behavior.
What's hilarious is the perception from loudmouthed, 'hard core' sports fans think they make up a majority of the audience, when in fact, they're nothing but a vocal minority. The casual fan, which make up an overwhelming majority of the overall sports audience (particularly the NFL) care nothing about anything in this thread.
Fans have screamed 'rigged!' for years when their team loses, before and after sports betting became legal. Enshrining Rose to the hall would have literally zero effect on the dollars gambled. Therefore, the ban should be lifted, he should be enshrined, as well as McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens, Then, maybe, MLB would begin to restore some of its legitimacy. Until then? They are as fraudulent as the NCAA.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
When was the time when fooling around with minors was "overlooked"? Pretty sure we took it a whole lot more seriously in the past than we have with Rose. That Rose never went to prison is his reward, and for him (or anyone else) to whine about his not being honored borders on disgusting.
still a big fan of this
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I’m fine with him getting in posthumous ly. There’s still some uncertainty as to the particular shade of obscenity. Unless you’re aware of some evidence I’m not. We know there’s a statement accusing him because there was a statement that there is. But I’ve never seen the statement and it’s sealed in the Dowd case.
He’s a sleaze-ball, a dope, and a man of low character. But maybe not quite a monster.
They could engrave that on his HOF plaque and lower the honor associated with being in the HOF down into the gutter. Why that would make some of you happy is beyond me. Pete Rose is precisely the kind of person the HOF founders were thinking of when they made "character" a HOF requirement, and they were, very obviously, correct to do so.
In a few generations no one will care he bet on baseball his will just be known as the hit king. People will forget and move on. But his stats will not be forgotten.
The HOF opened in 1939. The majority of the founders and voters throughout the year would not pass the "character" test that they impose on others. "Character" is just an excuse for them to not vote for anyone they dont want to
Either every player, owner, coach, writer, and voter including current ones needs to be removed (or lose their vote) that cant pass the "character" test or they should be evaluated based on what they did for the game and let higher powers sort out their morality. Everyone should have the same standards applied to them in the HOF, not this picking and choosing
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Pete cheated on his wife with an underage girl, and cheated on the game with his gambling addiction.
Could that be known as a cheating double header? 😆
All the accusations about gambling and anything else are really meaningless to anyone but haters and hardcore fans. If these things were undeniable facts backed by incontrovertible evidence and third party testimony, why has there never been any sort of prosecution for all the transgressions?? Hearsay testimony is useless, cancel culture is alive and well and much of this thread is little more than slander.
It's absolutely hilarious how some out there idolize sports stars to the point whereby their "heroes" can do no wrong. 😆
Even more hilarious are the mental gymnastics people will twist themselves into to idolize one person while condemning another when both are guilty of the same thing.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
But you have no issue with the known racists who were inducted into the same hall. Got it. It's clear the type of behavior you are on board with.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
I just saw you're trying to sell your Pete Rose set on BST. Good luck with that.
"Hi everyone,
Beginning to sell off my collection, starting with my Rose basic set. 1978 to 1987, all PSA 9, only missing 1979 and 1986/87 Leaf. Asking $500 (APR value $542) or best offer.
Thanks for looking!"
I do not believe many humans do no wrong (some try very hard not to) and no I do not idolize ANY human I just appreciate what they have done or are doing nothing more.
You're dismissing the gambling stuff? Strange. Rose has admitted to it.
We live in an age of only deniable facts anyways.
Pete admitted to betting on baseball in his book.
Pete also spent time in jail for failure to report income.
Statute of limitations has passed on his affair with at least one underage girl.
These are facts.
Why did Pete Rose agree to a lifetime ban? If you can't answer that question, then you're not a serious person and there's no reason for me to care what your opinion might be. But if you can, then the answer to that question will clear up why Pete Rose isn't in the HOF, never will be in the HOF, and why arguments that he should be are so profoundly silly.
And just to be clear, I don't know specifically why Rose agreed to the lifetime ban. What I mean is that no matter what the reason may have been, there was a reason, and any reason you can imagine is enough to cause any reasonable person to understand why Rose will never be in the HOF.
I agree though I do seriously doubt that any reasonable man considers what will never happen.
Rose didn't agree to a lifetime ban that was going to happen anyways, he accepted it as documents show. The acceptance of it also allowed for applying for reinstatement. Manfred likely wont ever reinstate him. Manfred seems to hold grudges since Bauer is still blackballed even though he was cleared by multiple courts and beat MLB with his suspension in court.
As Pillar stated no one is idolizing him (hopefully not anyways) but its silly to try and ignore what he did as a player
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
If memory serves, one of the reasons Rose agreed to the lifetime ban was because it involved the cessation of Dowd's investigation into Rose's gambling. The question at that point was not whether Rose had gambled on games he managed for the Cincinnati Reds (anyone with half a brain already knew that), but whether Rose also bet against the Reds while managing them, too. We already know that Rose would not bet on games in which Soto or Gullickson were the starting pitchers, so it's not really a stretch to believe he may have bet against the Reds in those cases, also.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Holds the record for hits, games, at-bats, and second longest hitting streak (tied with Wee Willie Keeler's 1897 streak) sure he's among the greatest. Too bad he blew it from his betting on baseball and not coming clean about it for well over a decade.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Please tell me by "sleeps with" you mean hosting a fun slumber part/sleepover like they did in that one Princess Diaries movie...right?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
In court documents, Rose admitted that he had sex with the female but claimed that he did not do so until 1975, when she was 16 years old, and he was playing for the Cincinnati Reds. The suit would later be dismissed after both sides reached an agreement. In Ohio, 16 years of age is considered the age of consent.
Yes. That is a fact. The issue is that woman’s statement regarding her relationship with Rose and the timing. Feel free to dismiss it if you want but I don’t. It’s a sworn statement made to Dowd in a formal setting which detailed a sexual relationship with Rose before she turned 16. This was used as evidence in Dowd’s defamation defense. It’s past the statute of limitations and it seems, from the record, that this is something that woman had put in the past. That doesn’t mean it was legal or because he cannot be convicted that he did nothing wrong. To pretend it doesn’t exist or ignore the information that is available is something I can’t do.
I don’t personally know the details and it’s not my place to judge him. I can’t pretend this is all made up though or ignore it because I haven’t witnessed it personally.
The suit referenced wasn’t a criminal charge for statutory rape brought by Ohio. The suit was a defamation case against Dowd brought by Rose because Dowd made statements regarding this publicly. So in his defamation defense he introduced this sworn statement. At that point heresay becomes evidence.
And to convict someone of something theres no proof of is something that a lot of us cant do. Countless athletes get accused of things by people looking for money
Hersay is never actual evidence even if its admissible. Show me some actual evidence and sure lock him up forever, until then its just another athlete being accused of something with no proof
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Dowd saying publicly "someone made this statement" is Hearsay.
Dowd introducing a sworn statement by someone who was party to the statement being made is evidence.
Here's the motion that caused Rose to settle quick. He Did Not Want To Be Deposed.
ROSE v. DOWD
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-3681.
I wonder why he settled so quickly after he spent so much $$$ going after Dowd.
Proof is something you have to decide on. Proof and evidence allow us to accept truths, but only proven truths are facts to the observer. This doesn't even speak to what a legal standard of proof is which, itself, varies in different courts.
I'm sure you've heard the opening statement "Prove to me...". This is a good way to explain what proof means. I'm sure, if you think about it, there are countless things that you accept as truths which you wouldn't be able to prove to anyone else who chooses not to accept them as facts.
Then there is a whole spectrum of things which cannot be proven that we accept as truths.
Ethical claims such as "Murder is wrong.".
Statements which cannot be falsified such as "The earth will turn into strawberry jam.".
Anything which requires subjective interpretation like "That's a big mountain.".
Any questions which ponder meaning in abstract ways such as "Why are trees?".
Any circular requirements which are foundational like proving something like "Logic is logical.".
Point is. When someone gives a sworn statement, that can be introduced as evidence and it's not hearsay. If you download the complaint you'll see that the sworn statement, obtained as part of the MLB investigation which appointed Dowd, would meet all of the affidavit requirements in a court of law.
This is one of those cases where I think if people knew the truth, they would be disgusted, but we'll never know, so we can paint it with whatever brush we want. I use gray because it's pretty dark.
People lie in sworn statements and investigations all the time. Hersay, 3rd party evidence whether admissible or not is not hard evidence. Countless people get falsely accused of things. Look what happened to Bauer. In High School a classmate was flasely charged with rape because the girl didnt want to admit she wasnt a virgin. In pro ball I had a teammate accused of rape because the woman was cheating on her fiance and didnt want to admit it. In both cases the falsely accused were found innocent but nothing happened to the woman making the false claims.
Statements are worth about as much as the paper theyre printed on without hard evidence to back it up. Theres a number of reasons why someone might decide to settle. They could either realize no matter what they wont win, or just not want to keep pouring money into etc. The opposition just making it to expensive to continue is a real thing as well.
Cheating on his wife was certainly a scumbag move and hes not the greatest guy ever. The 14 year old stuff is just speculation though.
You can be one of the greatest players of all time without being one of the greatest humans of all time, which is often the case
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
It's totally up to you what you want to believe.
I think that a majority of people would look at what happened and think differently. I'm sure he's no worse than plenty of hall of fame members, but that doesn't mean he deserves to get in while he's alive - or ever.
Personally, I think he gets enshrined after he's gone and people have mostly forgotten about his transgressions; proven or not.
And with that... the rain has stopped and sun has come out here. Must mean I'm right. Joking!
I hope Im wrong, but I think he probably never gets in with the direction the HOF has been going with players despite his on field performance and nothing else being deserving of getting in.
Also can you send some of that sunshine over here. Storms have prevented me from grilling all day lol
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Since you bring up Bauer so often I will say. I think he should get a 3 year 24 million community service project in Milwaukee. That would propel them.
3 years 24 million isnt anywhere near what hes worth. But hes already said he would sign for league minimum with performance based incentives. There arent 60 pitchers in the league that are better than him and theres certainly not any team who has 5 better starters than him. '
False accusations can ruin peoples careers.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007