Let him into the HOF. Let him participate in ceremonies and promotional events. But never again let him work in a position that could possibly affect the outcome of games. I have family in Vegas and they say he is always there gambling. He still has a major gambling problem. The local papers talk about it all the time. I also heard there was a scathing op piece on Rose in one of the local papers the other day but I haven't had a chance to track it down.
1420 - True! But no one is thinking about putting Howe in the Hall Of Fame! ...jay
Jay, c'mon now ... the reason no one is talking about Howe in the Hall is because his numbers are not HOF material. Pete's numbers are. Steve Howe was "kicked out" of baseball 8 times, always to come back.
His induction would tarnish the memory of all of the greats who have ever been enshrined.
I guess putting a sick gambler in with racists, bigots, and other model citizens would tarnish the memory.
1420 - You missed my point! You were the one that mentioned Howe got x amount of chances! My point is that Howes NOT a player w/ HOF credentials so its a moot point! Since we are all talking about HOF entry ...jay
What HOF players ("racists, bigots")in particular are you talking about? Who among them were banned by baseball?
Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. Now he's changing his tune. He bet on his own team, for gosh sakes, a team which was completely under his control. Who knows how many game results were changed because of Rose?
I do not condone what Daryl Strawberry and Steve Howe have done, but what they did to the integrity of the game paled in comparison to Rose's gambling on baseball. Rose is a disgrace, pure and simple.
Jay, the comment was in the context of Howe getting back into baseball after being kicked out many times. Same with Gooden and a host of other "disabled" Americans. My point was if Pete were allowed back in, he would have been on the ballot.
Skycap, yes Rose agreed to the ban. In a nutshell ... he agreed, thought it would be a year ban according to what Pete said Giammatti told him, Giammatti passed away and here we are.
Like I said before, Pete Rose should be on the ballot. People will disagree that. So be it.
Though I now find myself wondering whether or not sportswriters would vote for him. I think it would be poetic justice to see him reinstated and then fail to get enough votes for the HOF. That would send a loud and clear message to him, perhaps -- but, then again, fifteen years later, I'm not convinced he has been listening all along anyway...
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
Personally, I do not think Pete is the brightest guy in the world and I think Pete really believed that it would not go this far. Bad mistake, as I have been taught not to lie, cheat or steal and I don't.
Guys Hi, I don't post much here but am always listening. I thought i would chime in on this one due to this one being close to my heart. Heres my 2 cents. Pete was probably the greatest PLAYER i have ever had the privlidge to observe personally. If we are talking about human beings here thats a different story. What we are really talking about here is Pete and Baseball. These 2 words are synonymous with each other. What he did was wrong? Yes. Destroying integrity of the game? I think not. Strikes,Selfishness,Big Money contracts. That has destroyed the integrity of the game. If anything lets get serious here. If the guys today played with just half the integrity Pete had for the game instead of half the heart Baseball may still have some Players that everyone would want to come out and see. I know myself. Just about every game i watch anymore no matter what the team i find myself increasingly more frustrated with the heart(or lack of) that i see on the playing field. Give me a high school game anyday. Balls out play died with Pete and believe me i'm not condoning what he has done but lets get off our high horses here. I have yet to meet a perfect human being or one that has played his entire life by the rules. So my vote is for Pete the player and hopefully we may see future players with the same INTEGRITY for the game.
Rose would be inducted into the Hall of Fame for his playing career, and as the last post stated he put more into playing baseball than most players of his era - not to mention compared to the present. As much as you can fault the guy for his actions post-career, you can't fault him for his intensity and his skills displayed on the playing field.
What his admission does is make one thing very clear - he should never be part of another baseball organization again. He forfeited that right with his actions as a manager.
I too believe Rose should be in the Hall, but so should Shoeless. I also believe he should never again don a uniform as a coach or manager. He forfeit that right when he bet on baseball whether on his team or not. I own standardbred horses and I'm not allowed to bet against my own horse. Same as the trainers for the horses arent supposed to bet anything but win on the horses in there stable. I'm not saying people follow the rules but if caught, they will be severly disiplined with a mandatory suspension. IN fact its a fine to have a cell phone in the paddock.
Gaspipe, Rose shouldn't have been allowed to bet on baseball in any fashion - whether it was for his team to win or lose, or it was a completely different game. In my business (asset mgmt.) we call that insider trading.
Bleacher, I never said he should have. I said he gave up the right when he did. You cant stop him from betting, you can only ban his participation in the sport for breaking the rules for betting.
I have mixed feeling about Pete. I think he should be allowed in the hall with an asterisk. In other words, he should be in the hall for his accomplishments but in an exhibit that shows how betting on baseball is very BAD in all forms. Perhaps rather than running away from the subject it can be highlighted in the hall so kids of all ages might be able to learn something. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if he gets in the hall, he would be the equivalent of a PSA Gem Mint 10 with a big fat MK qualifier on it, if that makes sense. Shoeless Joe and the rest of the Black Sox should be in the exhbit right there with him. Could something positive come out of this?
I also believe he should NEVER be allowed to coach or do anything in the majors. He has a serious addiction problem that ain't goin' away any time soon. Lastly, I feel that the players with major drug problems are a worse lot than gamblers. Drugs (cocaine, etc.) are illegal in our society. Gambling is not. I know that gambling is against the rules in baseball and I hate that Pete did it, but in our society it sure sends a mixed message. I know this logic is flawed but what the heck, just food for thought.
Cheers, minibeers
1966T, 1971T, 1972T raw and in 8s 1963T Dodgers in 8s Pre-war Brooklyn 5s or higher
In yesterday's Houston Chronicle, Larry Dierker told about the first time he met Pete Rose. Larry was a rookie and on a trip to Cincy, he was at dinner with another Houston player. Dierker was about 18 at the time.
Rose came up to the table so Larry could meet him. After some chit-chat, Rose (who was only 23-24 at the time), asked the Houston boys if they wanted to place any bets on the horses, since Pete was headed to River Downs.
The fact is, he's got a problem. A series of problems. Seems like the kid never grew up. It's called arrested development today. In Rose's case, it's simply called arrested, as in tax evasion.
What he did on the field can and should be offset, even cancelled out, by his off-the-field indescretions. The Hall of Fame includes bringing honor and integrity to the sport of baseball and anything associated with baseball. Gambling on the sport you play, while involved with that sport is the black ball, the unpardonable (baseball) sin.
Lifetime ban should stand. Let the next generation deal with Pete as this generation dealt with Shoeless Joe.
I knew in the back of mind that he gambled on baseball - I just never really wanted to think about it. Gambling is the cardinal sin of America's once national game, but it does not seem to be as wrong as some of the other disgraces that are happening to the sport.
I wish Pete would have come clean years ago as it may be a less hostile situation now.
<< <i>I wish Pete would have come clean years ago as it may be a less hostile situation now. >>
1420 - Time does heal! No one seems to care that Cobb was a racist and Cobb & Speaker were caught betting on games, or that Ruth was a womanizer, or that Fergie Jenkins & Cepeda had run ins w/ the law about drugs...and so on...jay
I hear you Jay, but when Gammons issued his statement I was floored. I have a lot of respect for Gammons views and insight of baseball and that said alot.
As a Pete Rose fan/supporter (yes, I still am), I am kind of taken back that he did not "prepare" himself better when it was time to face the music. I have only seen excerpts from his interview, but it does not seem that he is truly sorry. Who knows, the interview may disclose something different and Pete could look like a remorseful person.
<<Time does heal! No one seems to care that ... Cobb & Speaker were caught betting on games ...>>
Just a quick response to the above. Cobb and Speaker were not caught betting on games. Dutch Leonard (the lefty with the 1.00 ERA in 1914, not the knuckler of the 30s-50s) had a long-standing dispute with (and grudge against) both Cobb and Speaker. In the early '20s, he wrote a letter to Commissioner Landis accusing Cobb and Speaker of conspiring with others to throw a late-season game some years before. He claimed that he had actual proof of the conspiracy in the form of a handwritten letter. Commissioner Landis investigated the matter. Cobb and Speaker vehemently denied throwing any games. The Commissioner's office could find no one to corroborate Leonard's story. No co-conspirator was ever found. Moreover, Leonard never presented the alleged letter to the Commissioner or anything else that would tend to corroborate his accusation. Based on the dearth of evidence, the Commissioner found Leonard's accusation to be unfounded. End of story.
However, if you want something on Cobb and Speaker, both of them briefly belonged to the K.K.K. in the early 1920s when it was the fashionable thing to do.
I just read the excerpts of the Pete Rose book on CNN-SI (you have to subscribe to SI to read it) along with the editorials.
There are a few things that stood out to me when reading these excerpts and articles.
First, Rose does confess and does even admit to betting on the Reds, but stressed that he never bet against them. If this is true, then sure, he broke the letter of the law, but did he really break the spirit of the law? Yeah, I’ve heard the arguments in the past that betting for your team could result in over using a pitcher for one game, but he’s a manager, and he should be trying to win every game anyway.
Second, I love reading that for many years Bud Selig wanted nothing to do with Rose while he was Commissioner in regards to reinstating him. But immediately after Game 4 of the 2002 World Series when Rose got a 70 second standing ovation with everyone cheering “Hall of Fame”, Selig was then willing to talk.
According to Rose, Selig assured him reinstatement if he confessed that he gambled on games. Rose needs to be reinstated by 2005 or else he will not be eligible for voting by the sports writers. After that, he can only get in through the Veterans Committee who will probably be less sympathetic and probably snub him. So Rose comes clean in this book, but according the SI article, this week Selig is mum on any decision and sources inside his office say that he will probably just wait for a public opinion consensus to make his decision. What a gutless coward! Why I’m I not surprised?
For the past 12 years I’ve said that one man has tarnished that credibility of baseball. It’s not Pete Rose that I’m referring to, it’s Bud Selig. As long as this spineless puppet holds the title of MLB Commission and refuses to acknowledge and address all the serious problems of this sport, it’s a bigger mess than what Pete Rose ever caused to this game.
Oh, by the way, Pete Rose had and probably still has a problem. In fact, I’m very confident that medical doctors would diagnose his problem as a disease. According to this article, if a player is caught using drugs, they give him 6 weeks off, if needed, with paid leave for rehab. It appears they don’t have any program for gambling addicts. Wake up Bud!
Mike, even I agree with most of it. I also think that Pete really does not know what being sorry feels like. Some people are like that, they just cannot be emotional and "train" themselves to be abrupt and direct. It is not an excuse rather a fact. I am not a psychiatrist/psychologist/whatever you would call it, but I know people like that. They are not in the national spotlight however. Someone in Pete's personal life should have told him to at least try the emotional route, if he is a person that really has no emotion or feelings.
I recall reading about how his childhood and father were. Nothing bad, just not your usual father/son relationship. Maybe this is how he is, which if true, is a shame in itself. And if you are talking about trying to be the first to get reinstated back into baseball, it could ultimately mean the end of the road.
With the events of the past two days, Pete has let a lot of us down.
OK, say he only bet on the Reds to win. But we know he bet heavily and often. Game after game after game. If he doesn't bet on the Reds one day, isn't that the same as betting against them if he bet for them several days in a row?
What about calling other managers to find out if players were hurt and would sit out. Blatant inside information.
However, I do agree with you on Selig. That's why I'm afraid he'll cave and lift the ban.
Dan, I agree with your post. Bud Selig has done nothing FOR baseball in the past 10 years. Nothing at all. He is looking for something that will define his commissionership and overshadow his lack of effort in rebuliding baseball.
And we all know that Baseball needs to be rebuilt. It is not the same game as it was.
It's appears that there is more public outcry against Rose than for, so I'm guessing the Selig won't immediately reinstate him or if he does, it will be in some mamby-pamby way, like probation.
That was an outstanding article you linked from the Houston newspaper!
Rose is a disgrace to the game. He should never be made eligible for the HOF.
His ego is so inflated that he decided to admit to betting on baseball at the very same time this year's inductees were announced. Sadly, this seems to have overshadowed and drawn attention away from two great players, Eckersley and Molitor. What a despicable human being Rose is!
It's hard to believe that people would think so highly of this jerk that they collect his cards and memorabilia!
I think Rose should remain banned from baseball for his behavior as a manager, but be eligible for HOF induction for his accomplishments as a player (though if he actually gets in is anyone’s guess). I’ve really struggled with this issue for a while now, because it’s painful to admit that your childhood sports hero is willing to stoop to the depths he has. I do think, however, that people need to be careful when arguing against his induction because of broke the “#1 cardinal sin” in the sport. In general, there are 2 main arguments against his induction:
1. He broke the rules, was banned from baseball, and no admission of guilt absolves him from his banishment (which disqualifies him from HOF consideration). In fact, admission of guilt should only cement the permanence of the ban. 2. His admission of guilt might justify his reinstatement, but his behavior still hurt the integrity of the game, so HOF should vote against his enshrinement.
With regards to the first, the unspoken implication is that baseball’s rules are more important than federal, state, and local law. What if, instead of betting on baseball in '87-'88, Rose had been convicted of rape in the late 80s (perhaps a timely question with the Kobe situation). The all-time hit king, a no-brainer first ballot HOFer, is now a convicted rapist ... should he be eligible for the HOF? According to baseball’s rules, he would be. But would he get voted in? My suspicion is that many baseball purists would focus on his "on the field vs. off the field" accomplishments, so that he’d have a decent shot. But that seems to be scary logic, implying somehow that breaking baseball’s #1 rule is more reprehensible than committing a major societal crime. As an example, remember that there’s more to the Rose/Cobb comparison than “he was a bad person and a bigot” – Cobb was convicted of assault and battery, and, in a separate incident, fled the country with a warrant out for his arrest (both occurred during his playing days). Yet neither affected his inclusion in the Hall, suggesting that breaking the rules (in this case, society’s rules) was not sufficient grounds for HOF exclusion.
The underlying basis for the second argument is from the “Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame”:
“5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Reinstatement aside, many have argued that this criterion justifies his exclusion because his behavior lacked integrity and demonstrated low character. Setting aside the issue of when the betting occurred (i.e., should his post-playing days behavior affect assessment of his record as a player), using the “integrity,” “sportsmanship,” and “character” arguments against Rose is inconsistent given the current inclusion of many often-noted unsavory characters in the Hall. Is purposefully trying to harm an opponent with sharpened spikes “sportsmanlike”? Does brushing back hitters who crowd the box demonstrate strong character? At the very least, these traits seem too subjective to be the primary basis for keeping Rose out of the Hall.
Gammons is just the latest columnist to get sucked into this type of thinking: “And until Pete Rose proves to me that he cares about something other than Pete Rose, he does not have my vote.” He was all in favor of Rose being in the HOF until he had the stunning revelation this week that Rose is a selfish person with no remorse, which in turn caused Gammons to conclude only now that lack of integrity mattered enough to keep him out. That’s as subjective as it gets in my opinion. The only people who’s opinion should have changed this past week were those who believed he told the truth in ‘89 when he said he didn’t bet on baseball. Everyone else’s opinion about his HOF-status should remain unchanged … even if your opinion of him as a person has.
Robert
P.S. Skycap – should Tobacco-era collectors should be ashamed of themselves too for having bigots in their collections? And I suppose Ruth and Mantle collectors are a sad lot too for idolizing such miscreants ...
It's hard to believe that people would think so highly of this jerk that they collect his cards and memorabilia!
Just to add one more thought: Collecting Rose cards is like collecting anyone else's - it allows us to remember the excitement we felt watching them play, and the joy we felt when they helped out team win. It has nothing to do with thinking highly of Rose the person ... once again, the list would be long if we named popular players who were unsavory folks personally.
"Tobacco-era collectors should be ashamed of themselves too for having bigots in their collections? And I suppose Ruth and Mantle collectors are a sad lot too for idolizing such miscreants"
The difference between Rose and those you allude to above is that Rose corrupted the game of baseball while the others did not. He bet on the very games he managed and perhaps even played in! Being a bigot, boozer or womanizer does not corrupt the game of baseball.
Rose does not deserve to be in the HOF with Ruth, Cobb, Foxx, Williams, Mays, Yaz, Aaron, Mantle, Banks, Carew, Eckersley, Molitor and company.
Your initial comment was focused on why people collect his cards and memorabilia, which has nothing to do with the HOF debate. I was just pointing out that there's a difference between thinking someone is an upstanding person, and being a collector of their cards for whatever reason (nostalgic or otherwise). I'm sure there are plenty of card collectors who don't think highly of some of the players in their collection, but that's no reason to not collect them. That's all I was responding to ... you can't criticize Rose collectors because he's a "jerk" but then say that Cobb collectors etc. are ok - it doesn't make any sense, to me at least ...
Rose does not deserve to be in the HOF with Ruth, Cobb, Foxx, Williams, Mays, Yaz, Aaron, Mantle, Banks, Carew, Eckersley, Molitor and company
Some people disagree with that.
One could argue that Maris's record has been corrupted, and Ruth's soon will be. One could argue that baseball may be a detetiorating sport that needs help. One could argue that baseball still allows players to earn more than some small countries. One could argue that if you have a drug problem than baseball is something to consider as a career move.
Baseball has been corrupted much more than was Pete's fault as a manger.
Being a bigot, boozer or womanizer does not corrupt the game of baseball
What about being a racist?
Is baseball still a religion or viewed by many as it once was? Why is it that the game of baseball is still held in such high regard? I still enjoy it, but not the way I once did. I am sure that others feel exactly the same way, and that is easily proven.
I think Tony Kornheiser has the best idea allow him into the hall of fame along with Joe Jackson but mention on the plaques they received lifetime bans from baseball for their blatant disregard for the rules this seems like the best alternative
Being a bigot, boozer or womanizer does not corrupt the game of baseball.
I'll have to disagree with this statement. Judge Kenesaw Landis a former baseball commissioner, who is a member of the Hall of Fame steadfastly maintained a ban against black players. If that wasn't corrupting the game, then I don't know what would.
A person with a drinking problem can certainly tarnish the game too. Playing drunk or hungover is cheating yourself and your team out of your best possible performance. Here's one example. One pitcher had a drinking problem for most of his major league career. After several bad years with the Cubs and hitting rock bottom with his drinking problem he was traded. But during the offseason before playing for this next team he spent 3 months in rehab and dried himself up. This player then went on to be one of the greatest closers that ever played the game. His name is Dennis Eckersley. As a Cubs fan, wouldn't you feel betrayed that this guy wasn't playing his best because of this problem? And oh by the way, Eks was allegedy a pot head too and used a teenage kid who worked in the Red Sox clubhouse to buy pot for him. Gee, now there's a guy with character and integrity.
Oh and before I forget, Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford also bet on baseball in 1961 (and who knows if there were other years and occassions). I guess the only difference between them and Rose is that they didn't get caught, or probably more accurately, the powers-to-be turned a blind eye to the rules since it didn't appear to be a well kept secret.
Werent Mantle and Mays also banned from baseball for a period (like Rose after their playing careers) for associations with casinos? I dont remember that being put on their plaques.
I still think it will be up to Pete to at worst put on a charade that he is repentful and remorseful. If not, I believe it will be difficult for him to raise support at this point (rightfully or wrongfully).
Did anyone see the new Sports Illustrated? Rose is on the cover w/ the following statement in large letters. PETE ROSE'S CONFESSION - Mr Selig looked at me and said "I want to know one thing. Did you bet on baseball?" I looked him in the eye. "Yes, sir, I did bet on Baseball." "How Often?" he asked. "Four or five times a week," I replied. "Why?" he asked. "I didn't think i'd get caught," I said. With a statement like that, the only way Pete Rose will see the inside of the Hall Of Fame is if he pays admission...jay
I can't imagine why anyone would want to devote a collection of cards to Pete Rose. How can anyone admire this poor excuse of a human being and disgrace to baseball?
Skycap
-------------------------
"The only book Pete ever read in his life was the Pete Rose Story." -- Karolyn Rose (Pete's first wife)
<< <i>I can't imagine why anyone would want to devote a collection of cards to Pete Rose. How can anyone admire this poor excuse of a human being and disgrace to baseball? >>
Skycap,
State your case against Pete Rose all you want, but I don't believe you are in any position to pass a character judgment on other collectors or board members. Please keep these stupid comments to yourself.
Bernie Carlen
Currently collecting.....your guess is as good as mine.
Why are things that a manager (and player, if you believe some of the gamblers who have told about their association with Rose) does from the clubhouse or manager's office considered "off-field behavior"? It is part of what he does at his job of playing or managing. Heck, when a player crawled through the ventilation system to retrieve a corked bat from the umpire's dressing room, should we consider that to be "off-field" behavior too?
dude - as for players with drug or alcohol problems - those problems should be immediately apparent to the manager, who should not be letting a player on the field who he feels is impaired. Baseball already has a great way to take care of that - the disabled list. Not having your full heart in the game because you're gambling, OTOH, doesn't leave symptoms.
Did anyone see the new Sports Illustrated? Rose is on the cover w/ the following statement in large letters. PETE ROSE'S CONFESSION - Mr Selig looked at me and said "I want to know one thing. Did you bet on baseball?" I looked him in the eye. "Yes, sir, I did bet on Baseball." "How Often?" he asked. "Four or five times a week," I replied. "Why?" he asked. "I didn't think i'd get caught," I said. With a statement like that, the only way Pete Rose will see the inside of the Hall Of Fame is if he pays admission...jay
Jay, I think that is actually an honest answer. What else can you say to that question? Should he have said because I enjoyed it? Obviously Pete enjoyed betting on the games or he would not have done so. How about "for the excitement", is that a better answer? Any answer would have been the same to that question, and certainly to Rose detractors - which have come out of the woodwork faster than Dallas Cowboy fans in a winning season.
Pete bet on baseball. He got caught. To focus on his answers, the way he dresses or what he charges for his autograph is pointless.
Comments
<< <i>Howe was a 7 or 8 time loser >>
1420 - True! But no one is thinking about putting Howe in the Hall Of Fame! ...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Jay, c'mon now ... the reason no one is talking about Howe in the Hall is because his numbers are not HOF material. Pete's numbers are.
Steve Howe was "kicked out" of baseball 8 times, always to come back.
His induction would tarnish the memory of all of the greats who have ever been enshrined.
I guess putting a sick gambler in with racists, bigots, and other model citizens would tarnish the memory.
gimme a break
You were the one that mentioned Howe got x amount of chances!
My point is that Howes NOT a player w/ HOF credentials so its a moot point! Since we are all talking about HOF entry ...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
What HOF players ("racists, bigots")in particular are you talking about? Who among them were banned by baseball?
Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. Now he's changing his tune. He bet on his own team, for gosh sakes, a team which was completely under his control. Who knows how many game results were changed because of Rose?
I do not condone what Daryl Strawberry and Steve Howe have done, but what they did to the integrity of the game paled in comparison to Rose's gambling on baseball. Rose is a disgrace, pure and simple.
Skycap
Skycap, yes Rose agreed to the ban. In a nutshell ... he agreed, thought it would be a year ban according to what Pete said Giammatti told him, Giammatti passed away and here we are.
Like I said before, Pete Rose should be on the ballot. People will disagree that. So be it.
I think the interview will be interesting.
Hi, I don't post much here but am always listening. I thought i would chime in on this one due to this one being close to my heart. Heres my 2 cents. Pete was probably the greatest PLAYER i have ever had the privlidge to observe personally. If we are talking about human beings here thats a different story. What we are really talking about here is Pete and Baseball. These 2 words are synonymous with each other. What he did was wrong? Yes. Destroying integrity of the game? I think not. Strikes,Selfishness,Big Money contracts. That has destroyed the integrity of the game. If anything lets get serious here. If the guys today played with just half the integrity Pete had for the game instead of half the heart Baseball may still have some Players that everyone would want to come out and see. I know myself. Just about every game i watch anymore no matter what the team i find myself increasingly more frustrated with the heart(or lack of) that i see on the playing field. Give me a high school game anyday. Balls out play died with Pete and believe me i'm not condoning what he has done but lets get off our high horses here. I have yet to meet a perfect human being or one that has played his entire life by the rules. So my vote is for Pete the player and hopefully we may see future players with the same INTEGRITY for the game.
What his admission does is make one thing very clear - he should never be part of another baseball organization again. He forfeited that right with his actions as a manager.
Rose shouldn't have been allowed to bet on baseball in any fashion - whether it was for his team to win or lose, or it was a completely different game. In my business (asset mgmt.) we call that insider trading.
that'll get you a lifetime ban in bum's business and keep you out of the HOF.
I never said he should have. I said he gave up the right when he did. You cant stop him from betting, you can only ban his participation in the sport for breaking the rules for betting.
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
I also believe he should NEVER be allowed to coach or do anything in the majors. He has a serious addiction problem that ain't goin' away any time soon. Lastly, I feel that the players with major drug problems are a worse lot than gamblers. Drugs (cocaine, etc.) are illegal in our society. Gambling is not. I know that gambling is against the rules in baseball and I hate that Pete did it, but in our society it sure sends a mixed message. I know this logic is flawed but what the heck, just food for thought.
Cheers,
minibeers
1963T Dodgers in 8s
Pre-war Brooklyn 5s or higher
Rose came up to the table so Larry could meet him. After some chit-chat, Rose (who was only 23-24 at the time), asked the Houston boys if they wanted to place any bets on the horses, since Pete was headed to River Downs.
The fact is, he's got a problem. A series of problems. Seems like the kid never grew up. It's called arrested development today. In Rose's case, it's simply called arrested, as in tax evasion.
What he did on the field can and should be offset, even cancelled out, by his off-the-field indescretions. The Hall of Fame includes bringing honor and integrity to the sport of baseball and anything associated with baseball. Gambling on the sport you play, while involved with that sport is the black ball, the unpardonable (baseball) sin.
Lifetime ban should stand. Let the next generation deal with Pete as this generation dealt with Shoeless Joe.
I wish Pete would have come clean years ago as it may be a less hostile situation now.
<< <i>I wish Pete would have come clean years ago as it may be a less hostile situation now. >>
1420 - Time does heal! No one seems to care that Cobb was a racist and Cobb & Speaker were caught betting on games, or that Ruth was a womanizer, or that Fergie Jenkins & Cepeda had run ins w/ the law about drugs...and so on...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
As a Pete Rose fan/supporter (yes, I still am), I am kind of taken back that he did not "prepare" himself better when it was time to face the music. I have only seen excerpts from his interview, but it does not seem that he is truly sorry. Who knows, the interview may disclose something different and Pete could look like a remorseful person.
I am looking forward to the interview.
Just a quick response to the above. Cobb and Speaker were not caught betting on games. Dutch Leonard (the lefty with the 1.00 ERA in 1914, not the knuckler of the 30s-50s) had a long-standing dispute with (and grudge against) both Cobb and Speaker. In the early '20s, he wrote a letter to Commissioner Landis accusing Cobb and Speaker of conspiring with others to throw a late-season game some years before. He claimed that he had actual proof of the conspiracy in the form of a handwritten letter. Commissioner Landis investigated the matter. Cobb and Speaker vehemently denied throwing any games. The Commissioner's office could find no one to corroborate Leonard's story. No co-conspirator was ever found. Moreover, Leonard never presented the alleged letter to the Commissioner or anything else that would tend to corroborate his accusation. Based on the dearth of evidence, the Commissioner found Leonard's accusation to be unfounded. End of story.
However, if you want something on Cobb and Speaker, both of them briefly belonged to the K.K.K. in the early 1920s when it was the fashionable thing to do.
Thanks
Randy
Richard Justice column
The opening few lines are daggers that pretty much settle it as far as I'm concerned (not that I was wavering).
There are a few things that stood out to me when reading these excerpts and articles.
First, Rose does confess and does even admit to betting on the Reds, but stressed that he never bet against them. If this is true, then sure, he broke the letter of the law, but did he really break the spirit of the law? Yeah, I’ve heard the arguments in the past that betting for your team could result in over using a pitcher for one game, but he’s a manager, and he should be trying to win every game anyway.
Second, I love reading that for many years Bud Selig wanted nothing to do with Rose while he was Commissioner in regards to reinstating him. But immediately after Game 4 of the 2002 World Series when Rose got a 70 second standing ovation with everyone cheering “Hall of Fame”, Selig was then willing to talk.
According to Rose, Selig assured him reinstatement if he confessed that he gambled on games. Rose needs to be reinstated by 2005 or else he will not be eligible for voting by the sports writers. After that, he can only get in through the Veterans Committee who will probably be less sympathetic and probably snub him. So Rose comes clean in this book, but according the SI article, this week Selig is mum on any decision and sources inside his office say that he will probably just wait for a public opinion consensus to make his decision. What a gutless coward! Why I’m I not surprised?
For the past 12 years I’ve said that one man has tarnished that credibility of baseball. It’s not Pete Rose that I’m referring to, it’s Bud Selig. As long as this spineless puppet holds the title of MLB Commission and refuses to acknowledge and address all the serious problems of this sport, it’s a bigger mess than what Pete Rose ever caused to this game.
Oh, by the way, Pete Rose had and probably still has a problem. In fact, I’m very confident that medical doctors would diagnose his problem as a disease. According to this article, if a player is caught using drugs, they give him 6 weeks off, if needed, with paid leave for rehab. It appears they don’t have any program for gambling addicts. Wake up Bud!
I recall reading about how his childhood and father were. Nothing bad, just not your usual father/son relationship. Maybe this is how he is, which if true, is a shame in itself. And if you are talking about trying to be the first to get reinstated back into baseball, it could ultimately mean the end of the road.
With the events of the past two days, Pete has let a lot of us down.
OK, say he only bet on the Reds to win. But we know he bet heavily and often. Game after game after game. If he doesn't bet on the Reds one day, isn't that the same as betting against them if he bet for them several days in a row?
What about calling other managers to find out if players were hurt and would sit out. Blatant inside information.
However, I do agree with you on Selig. That's why I'm afraid he'll cave and lift the ban.
And we all know that Baseball needs to be rebuilt. It is not the same game as it was.
It's appears that there is more public outcry against Rose than for, so I'm guessing the Selig won't immediately reinstate him or if he does, it will be in some mamby-pamby way, like probation.
That was an outstanding article you linked from the Houston newspaper!
Rose is a disgrace to the game. He should never be made eligible for the HOF.
His ego is so inflated that he decided to admit to betting on baseball at the very same time this year's inductees were announced. Sadly, this seems to have overshadowed and drawn attention away from two great players, Eckersley and Molitor. What a despicable human being Rose is!
It's hard to believe that people would think so highly of this jerk that they collect his cards and memorabilia!
Skycap
1. He broke the rules, was banned from baseball, and no admission of guilt absolves him from his banishment (which disqualifies him from HOF consideration). In fact, admission of guilt should only cement the permanence of the ban.
2. His admission of guilt might justify his reinstatement, but his behavior still hurt the integrity of the game, so HOF should vote against his enshrinement.
With regards to the first, the unspoken implication is that baseball’s rules are more important than federal, state, and local law. What if, instead of betting on baseball in '87-'88, Rose had been convicted of rape in the late 80s (perhaps a timely question with the Kobe situation). The all-time hit king, a no-brainer first ballot HOFer, is now a convicted rapist ... should he be eligible for the HOF? According to baseball’s rules, he would be. But would he get voted in? My suspicion is that many baseball purists would focus on his "on the field vs. off the field" accomplishments, so that he’d have a decent shot. But that seems to be scary logic, implying somehow that breaking baseball’s #1 rule is more reprehensible than committing a major societal crime. As an example, remember that there’s more to the Rose/Cobb comparison than “he was a bad person and a bigot” – Cobb was convicted of assault and battery, and, in a separate incident, fled the country with a warrant out for his arrest (both occurred during his playing days). Yet neither affected his inclusion in the Hall, suggesting that breaking the rules (in this case, society’s rules) was not sufficient grounds for HOF exclusion.
The underlying basis for the second argument is from the “Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame”:
“5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Reinstatement aside, many have argued that this criterion justifies his exclusion because his behavior lacked integrity and demonstrated low character. Setting aside the issue of when the betting occurred (i.e., should his post-playing days behavior affect assessment of his record as a player), using the “integrity,” “sportsmanship,” and “character” arguments against Rose is inconsistent given the current inclusion of many often-noted unsavory characters in the Hall. Is purposefully trying to harm an opponent with sharpened spikes “sportsmanlike”? Does brushing back hitters who crowd the box demonstrate strong character? At the very least, these traits seem too subjective to be the primary basis for keeping Rose out of the Hall.
Gammons is just the latest columnist to get sucked into this type of thinking: “And until Pete Rose proves to me that he cares about something other than Pete Rose, he does not have my vote.” He was all in favor of Rose being in the HOF until he had the stunning revelation this week that Rose is a selfish person with no remorse, which in turn caused Gammons to conclude only now that lack of integrity mattered enough to keep him out. That’s as subjective as it gets in my opinion. The only people who’s opinion should have changed this past week were those who believed he told the truth in ‘89 when he said he didn’t bet on baseball. Everyone else’s opinion about his HOF-status should remain unchanged … even if your opinion of him as a person has.
Robert
P.S. Skycap – should Tobacco-era collectors should be ashamed of themselves too for having bigots in their collections? And I suppose Ruth and Mantle collectors are a sad lot too for idolizing such miscreants ...
Just to add one more thought: Collecting Rose cards is like collecting anyone else's - it allows us to remember the excitement we felt watching them play, and the joy we felt when they helped out team win. It has nothing to do with thinking highly of Rose the person ... once again, the list would be long if we named popular players who were unsavory folks personally.
Robert
"Tobacco-era collectors should be ashamed of themselves too for having bigots in their collections? And I suppose Ruth and Mantle collectors are a sad lot too for idolizing such miscreants"
The difference between Rose and those you allude to above is that Rose corrupted the game of baseball while the others did not. He bet on the very games he managed and perhaps even played in! Being a bigot, boozer or womanizer does not corrupt the game of baseball.
Rose does not deserve to be in the HOF with Ruth, Cobb, Foxx, Williams, Mays, Yaz, Aaron, Mantle, Banks, Carew, Eckersley, Molitor and company.
Skycap
Your initial comment was focused on why people collect his cards and memorabilia, which has nothing to do with the HOF debate. I was just pointing out that there's a difference between thinking someone is an upstanding person, and being a collector of their cards for whatever reason (nostalgic or otherwise). I'm sure there are plenty of card collectors who don't think highly of some of the players in their collection, but that's no reason to not collect them. That's all I was responding to ... you can't criticize Rose collectors because he's a "jerk" but then say that Cobb collectors etc. are ok - it doesn't make any sense, to me at least ...
Robert
Some people disagree with that.
One could argue that Maris's record has been corrupted, and Ruth's soon will be. One could argue that baseball may be a detetiorating sport that needs help. One could argue that baseball still allows players to earn more than some small countries. One could argue that if you have a drug problem than baseball is something to consider as a career move.
Baseball has been corrupted much more than was Pete's fault as a manger.
What about being a racist?
Is baseball still a religion or viewed by many as it once was? Why is it that the game of baseball is still held in such high regard? I still enjoy it, but not the way I once did. I am sure that others feel exactly the same way, and that is easily proven.
I'll have to disagree with this statement. Judge Kenesaw Landis a former baseball commissioner, who is a member of the Hall of Fame steadfastly maintained a ban against black players. If that wasn't corrupting the game, then I don't know what would.
A person with a drinking problem can certainly tarnish the game too. Playing drunk or hungover is cheating yourself and your team out of your best possible performance. Here's one example. One pitcher had a drinking problem for most of his major league career. After several bad years with the Cubs and hitting rock bottom with his drinking problem he was traded. But during the offseason before playing for this next team he spent 3 months in rehab and dried himself up. This player then went on to be one of the greatest closers that ever played the game. His name is Dennis Eckersley. As a Cubs fan, wouldn't you feel betrayed that this guy wasn't playing his best because of this problem? And oh by the way, Eks was allegedy a pot head too and used a teenage kid who worked in the Red Sox clubhouse to buy pot for him. Gee, now there's a guy with character and integrity.
Oh and before I forget, Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford also bet on baseball in 1961 (and who knows if there were other years and occassions). I guess the only difference between them and Rose is that they didn't get caught, or probably more accurately, the powers-to-be turned a blind eye to the rules since it didn't appear to be a well kept secret.
I highly recommend that everyone read this Jason Stark article on Rose posted at the ESPN website today:
Jason Stark article
Read Gammon's too:
Peter Gammons article
Skycap
I still think it will be up to Pete to at worst put on a charade that he is repentful and remorseful. If not, I believe it will be difficult for him to raise support at this point (rightfully or wrongfully).
PETE ROSE'S CONFESSION - Mr Selig looked at me and said "I want to know one thing. Did you bet on baseball?" I looked him in the eye. "Yes, sir, I did bet on Baseball." "How Often?" he asked. "Four or five times a week," I replied. "Why?" he asked. "I didn't think i'd get caught," I said.
With a statement like that, the only way Pete Rose will see the inside of the Hall Of Fame is if he pays admission...jay
edited for spelling:
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Skycap
-------------------------
"The only book Pete ever read in his life was the Pete Rose Story." -- Karolyn Rose (Pete's first wife)
<< <i>I can't imagine why anyone would want to devote a collection of cards to Pete Rose. How can anyone admire this poor excuse of a human being and disgrace to baseball? >>
Skycap,
State your case against Pete Rose all you want, but I don't believe you are in any position to pass a character judgment on other collectors or board members. Please keep these stupid comments to yourself.
Currently collecting.....your guess is as good as mine.
dude - as for players with drug or alcohol problems - those problems should be immediately apparent to the manager, who should not be letting a player on the field who he feels is impaired. Baseball already has a great way to take care of that - the disabled list. Not having your full heart in the game because you're gambling, OTOH, doesn't leave symptoms.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Not necessarily if they were done after the game or as "off-field behavior"
Baseball already has a great way to take care of that - the disabled list
Just another thing that is wrong with baseball and the American workplace.
PETE ROSE'S CONFESSION - Mr Selig looked at me and said "I want to know one thing. Did you bet on baseball?" I looked him in the eye. "Yes, sir, I did bet on Baseball." "How Often?" he asked. "Four or five times a week," I replied. "Why?" he asked. "I didn't think i'd get caught," I said.
With a statement like that, the only way Pete Rose will see the inside of the Hall Of Fame is if he pays admission...jay
Jay, I think that is actually an honest answer. What else can you say to that question? Should he have said because I enjoyed it? Obviously Pete enjoyed betting on the games or he would not have done so. How about "for the excitement", is that a better answer? Any answer would have been the same to that question, and certainly to Rose detractors - which have come out of the woodwork faster than Dallas Cowboy fans in a winning season.
Pete bet on baseball. He got caught. To focus on his answers, the way he dresses or what he charges for his autograph is pointless.