A rule is a rule. Period. We are becoming a society who wants to prove every rule has a loophole if it pertains to ourselves. Just remember that total freedom is anarchy....
Fanatic you have been way off. Are you even reading these posts? Punishments are give out based on circumstances. Take the Pistons and Pacers brawl earlier in the year. Stephen Jackson, Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal all recieved different punishments for violating the same rule. Why were they given different punishments? Because the situations were viewed individually and the governing bodies assessed varying punisments for violating the same rule.
A rule is a rule is terrible reasoning. I'm bored of this and therefore I am tapping out. I am sorry to bore the rest of you who have that we would come up with something good to say instead of our merry-go-round of arguements. And AJW I am sure this will come up again in a few months but I will not engage again . This has really killed my productivity today
Yikes, I didn't mean for my curiosity for percentages regarding the poll's topic with this thread to spawn a heated discussion. Although it has been interesting.
People know me on here for collecting hockey and not much baseball but I do enjoy the history and watching it. I started the poll off and voted 'No, and he should never be.' I based my own vote on rules are rules, he broke them knowing the circumstances if caught and he was caught so 'You made your bed now lay in it'
In the course of the thread reading what people have said I've gone back and fourth but back to thinking he shouldn't be unless MLB were to scrap the rule which won't happen because it would ruin them.
My next poll will be much lighter.. how about 'Coke or Pepsi?'
I drove without a valid license plate sticker. I also did not have a current insurance card on me, nor did I have my vehicle registration either. For all this I get a $75 ticket, that a judge threw out after I bought a replacement sticker and brought a current insurance card to court. According to your "black and white reasoning", I should have been arrested, had my car impounded and gotten a lifetime ban from driving.
You must not be a trial lawyer, or you would see that there really isn't anything black and white to the punishment phase in the "real world". It is my personal opinion (and the majority I may add) that a lifetime ban is unjust in punishing Rose. He belongs in the HOF as a player. He will get there in our lifetime, and you will be free to argue that he shouldn't be because a "rule is a rule!!!!!"
nice argueing by the way, but I doubt we can make much compromise here.
Actually, you probably did not break the law when you drove without your sticker. There is likely a requirement that you *intended* to drive without the sticker. Most laws have some requirement that the accused *intended* to break the law. (There are, of course, exceptions, and your example may well be one of them.) So, when you went to court, you argued (basically) that you did not intend to violate the statute. You probably had a record showing you paid the fee for the sticker, further strengthening your argument. So, your case was actually more black and white than you think. It was clear that you did not break the law. (Assuming there was an intention requirement.)
No such claim can be made with Pete Rose. He intended to break the rule and he did break the rule. Black and white.
<< <i>Fanatic you have been way off. Are you even reading these posts? Punishments are give out based on circumstances. Take the Pistons and Pacers brawl earlier in the year. Stephen Jackson, Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal all recieved different punishments for violating the same rule. Why were they given different punishments? Because the situations were viewed individually and the governing bodies assessed varying punisments for violating the same rule.
A rule is a rule is terrible reasoning. I'm bored of this and therefore I am tapping out. I am sorry to bore the rest of you who have that we would come up with something good to say instead of our merry-go-round of arguements. And AJW I am sure this will come up again in a few months but I will not engage again . This has really killed my productivity today >>
Read every post an am amazed. Lets see Rule 21d: Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
That is the rule. The circumstances are he broke the rule. The penalty (and the rule) was printed in black and white long before Mr. Rose was born and hangs in every baseball locker room. What other circumstances are needed? The courts are clogged with people trying to find a way that the rules dont apply to them
Thinking about rules and "black and white" judgements--should this thread actually be on the "Sports Talk" forum as opposed to the "Sports Cards & Memorabilia" forum?
In any case, I have enjoyed reading the opinions of all involved in this duscussion.
p.s. I'd vote for Pete for the HOF if he was allowed on the ballot. His achievements as a player are too much to ignore. Maybe have on his plaque that as a Manager he violated the betting rule and was banned from any official involvement in MLB for the rest of his life.
I collect Vintage Cards, Commemorative Sets, and way too many vintage and modern player collections in Baseball (180 players), Football (175 players), and Basketball (87 players). Also have a Dallas Cowboy team collection.
Actually Cs are very nice, but I actually think i'll take identical "high for the grade" B's. Hershey kisses in shape with medium dark mid to smallish nipples. Sarah Jessica Parkers are probably near perfection with that lil frame she has. mmm-mmmm!!!!
Those who say that since Rose bet on his own team to win, then that should be "okay" - don't really understand gamblers or bookies. When a gambler is desperate, especially one such as Pete Rose, he will definitely bet against his own team, just a matter of the right circumstances. One well publicized story is that Rose owed one bookie $30,000 and couldn't/wouldn't pay. Who knows how much more he owed to other bookies? If some mob connected bookie who Rose owes a ton of money to, says to Rose "Throw this game or we'll throw you through a plate glass window" - Rose will throw the game - that is what gambling with bookies is all about. Rose either betting against his own team and/or throwing a game would have happened - not a question of if, just a question of when. MLB understands all this and that's why the rules are in effect for all gambling.
yea, stevek I think your dead on here. I'm sure the original intent of the gambling rule intended to thwart "throwing" the game or trying to lose. While Rose (we guess) never bet on his team to lose, your example shows how the temptation would be very real. I think betting to win was the loophole rose planned to utilize, but then he denied too long, the commisioiner died, and blah, blah, blah... Thus all gambling is bad, lets all join hands now as we cross into hell.
<< <i>Actually, you probably did not break the law when you drove without your sticker. There is likely a requirement that you *intended* to drive without the sticker. Most laws have some requirement that the accused *intended* to break the law. (There are, of course, exceptions, and your example may well be one of them.) So, when you went to court, you argued (basically) that you did not intend to violate the statute. You probably had a record showing you paid the fee for the sticker, further strengthening your argument. So, your case was actually more black and white than you think. It was clear that you did not break the law. (Assuming there was an intention requirement.)
No such claim can be made with Pete Rose. He intended to break the rule and he did break the rule. Black and white. >>
Exactly.
Pete KNEW without a doubt, that if he got busted gambling on MLB, he would be pernamently banned for life. It is a KNOWN rule by every player, manager, and Owner. There is a sign in every clubhouse stating the same; if you get busted for gambling on MLB games, you are out for life.... PERIOD.
It's not like he pulled a Steve Howe or anything, there were no "set" rules when it came to failed drug tests. Same is true with Giambi, Bonds, etc. Prior to this year, if you got busted with the juice, you would get a wrist slap.
True, life is not black and white; there are some gray areas. However, when it comes to gambling in MLB, there is no gray.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
There was no black and white rule concerning drugs when they were the rage in the 80's. The rules are still changing as people are understanding and coming to grips with the problem. Off the subject but here is a great quote I found from Steve Howe and Tony LaRussa:
“Back in my day we would go out drinking after every game,” Howe said. “We would head out to bars and do lines right there on the table. Then we’d pick up some local girls and take them back to our hotel rooms and do more coke. Then we’d wake up in the morning, come to the ballpark all hungover and take some uppers to wake ourselves up. I’ll tell you what we weren’t doing, though: sticking needles in our asses. Notice I said ‘asses’ and not ‘eyeballs.’”
Cocaine is not the only drug missing from major league clubhouses these days. The use of marijuana, alcohol, and cigarettes is on the decline as well.
“You don’t see too much of that stuff anymore. It’s gone out of fashion,” said Cards manager Tony LaRussa. “Players today are much more interested in consuming protein shakes and health food. It seems their only vices these days, if you can call them that, are taking steroids and soliciting underage prostitutes.”
Baseball may never see a return to its glory days of rampant cocaine and alcohol abuse. The league’s anti-drug policies are stronger than ever and it looks as though widespread usage is on a permanent decline. Still, old-timers would like to see some of today’s stars give cocaine a chance.
“Don’t knock it till you try it. That’s what I always say,” said Howe. “Some of today’s players would probably benefit from a couple 8 balls if they would just grow a pair and try it. Take Barry Bonds for instance. If that surly (edited) would take a couple of toots, it would improve his whole outlook on life. He’d be a better interview, too. And how about Rafael Palmeiro? A few quick lines could give him the self-confidence he needs to beat that impotence problem. And if he’s still impotent, at least he’d have a decent excuse.” __________________ Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain
<< <i>No gray? Darryl Strawberry was supposed to be banned on his 3rd and 4th drug violations. Hmmmm.. that sounds at least a little gray. >>
But that is the whole point. When it came to drugs, there was a gray area (ie Steve Howe and his 7 or 8 trips to the Betty Ford Clinic). With gambling, the precedence was set with the 1919 Black Sox. You gamble, your gone, period.
And if he’s still impotent, at least he’d have a decent excuse.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
First off, let me say that I am a big Mark McGwire fan. I have been watching him since his USC days. With that in mind, I DO NOT think he should be in the HOF. Here is why.
Pulled straight from the Official National Baseball Hall of Fame: "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.
Step by Step. 1. Player's record - I see this as the player's stats... 2. Playing ability - Little bit vague. Does this mean that if a player has great ability, but not the record, he can get in? Does ANYONE doubt that Darryl Strawberry had great "playing ability," but drugs got in the way? 3. Integrity - Does anyone disagree that Pete Rose has no integrity? First he denies for 10 years that he bet on baseball and then when it looks like this is the only way that he could get into the HOF is admit it. THE RULES CLEARLY TAKE A PLAYERS INTEGRITY INTO CONSIDERATION. 4. Sportmanship - Did Pete Rose's teammates like him? Probably. 5. Character - Did Pete Rose lie and continue to lie for 10 years? This kills Mr. Rose as well. 6. Contributions to the team - Little bit vague, but I'll give Mr. Rose the benefit of the doubt.
With this is mind, it is clear that voting CAN BE BASED on more than what a player did on the field. If fact, stats account for only 1 out of 6 considerations. So, not being a jerk IS A REQUIREMENT to get into the HOF.
By my account, McGwire and Rose pass considerations numbers 1, 2, 4 and 6, but fail 3 and 5. As such, I do not think either Rose or McGwire should get in.
Just to clarify a couple of things for me, since everything has to be black and white.
Is the rule on gambling a ban from baseball or the hall of fame? Are they one in the same? Are the one in the same in the Hall of Fame's eyes?
The truth is, I have no problem with Pete Rose being banned from baseball. My point was 4256 hits BEFORE gambling on baseball, and what he did ON THE FIELD should be rewarded in the Hall.
And for all the talk of Strawberry, Howe, Giambi, and Bonds, I'll agree a drug rule is not so definitive. But I thought Gaylord Perry admitted to cheating, using spitters and vasoline, and he's in the hall. I thought there was something in the rule book about that.
So to sum up, I think Pete Rose should never be allowed to manage or participate in a MLB event again, but I believe he should be in the hall of fame for his baseball accomplishments.
<< <i>My point was 4256 hits BEFORE gambling on baseball, and what he did ON THE FIELD should be rewarded in the Hall. >>
Remember just a couple of years ago, Pete swore up and down that he never, ever bet on baseball. Now he says that he did bet but only while he was the manager and never against them. Is there perhaps a reasonable doubt that Rose did bet while he was playing? Consider this, after he got the life-time ban, he bragged about playing the horses and NFL games. If you are attempting to clear your name as a gambler, the LAST thing you do is gamble more. Personally, I think he did.
<< <i>But I thought Gaylord Perry admitted to cheating, using spitters and vasoline, and he's in the hall. I thought there was something in the rule book about that. >>
Yes there is... But does that crime carry the same weight as gambling? According to MLB rules, they are two completely different situations that carry different punishments. You get caught cheating and you get suspended. You get caught gambling and you get a life-time ban.
But hey, that's just my $0.02 and that's what makes this country great; we can agree to disagree
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Wasn't jimmie foxx a womanizing drunk? Wasn't willie mays an a-hole? You can be an ass and get in the HOF.
This is a split topic i'll agree. I agree with bigredmachine completely on this one. his credentials as a player without a doubt put him easily in the HOF. He entirely screwed it up AFTER he quit playing. I agree there should be a distinction.
HOF as a player. HOS as a manager. (hall of shame)
While the rule is very clear and it is obvious that Rose broke it, I still believe he deserves to be in the HOF solely for his accomplishments while he was a player.
I view a player's playing career as a totally separate career than his managerial career. I say this because if Pete Rose had decided to simply retire when he stopped playing, he would be in the HOF today. Now, what would happen if he would have retired in 1987 rather than manage... he would have been inducted in 1992. Let's say he came back and coached in 1993 and was then found to be gambling... would they revoke his HOF entry, which he acheived as a player, because of gambling he did as a manager? I think he would just be thrown out of baseball at that point, but it wouldn't have any affect on what he did as a player on the field nor his HOF induction.
Theoretically, this could happen to someone today... let's use Frank Robinson for example. Let's say he went crazy and decided to start betting on games and got caught. Would they remove him from the HOF? I highly doubt it because what he is doing today as a manager has absolutely no bearing on what he did during his playing days.
The reality is that Pete Rose is unlikely to ever be reinstated into MLB. Baseball will continually point to him as the modern day example of the 1919 Black Sox that not as many people are familair with. Pete Rose is MLB's poster child of what not to do and the consequences of violating the rules. I fail to see how MLB would really benefit at this point or any time in the future from allowing him back, it would only spark controversy and cast an odd shadow on the game.
I voted "Yes and he deserves to be." I then skipped over every post in this thread without reading, as it will always be a point, counter point blog about morals when it comes to Rose
He bet on baseball - no doubt. He is a compulsive gambler and an arrogant SOB. I trust he never bet on a game he could directly influence. He had a chance to heal any wounds with MLB if he went about it in a fashion of admission and contrition. But he remained/remains an arrogant SOB.....ala Ty Cobb.
Put him in. He was an amazing baseball player with few to no peers. No steriods - just unrelenting. No enhancements aiding his performance. Just a different malady casting a shadow on his on the field accomplishments. Going forward, un-proven yet definite juicers will get in. Put him in.
Proud of my 16x20 autographed and framed collection - all signed in person. Not big on modern - I'm stuck in the past!
Pete Rose played the game with as much if not more intensity than any player I have ever seen in my lifetime. EVER.
He made poor choices OFF THE FIELD as a manager, and yes, made it worse by denying the charges. However, these occurred AFTER his playing career, and should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his rightful induction into the hall as a PLAYER.
Keep him out of baseball. Don't allow him near the game in any capacity in the front office, as a manager, anything.
But to deny him his rightful place in the hall of fame is an absolute atrocity.
It makes me laugh that some addictions (drug, alcohol, steroids) are tolerable (even though illegal in society), and those guilty of such offenses are given multiple chance to rebound. But somehow someone betting on games (which is legal in this country, albeit in some states), is somehow so horrific that we need to ban people forever?
Yes, I can see back when players were scrapping to make ends meet, sure, fixes might be on. But now, when the average player is making over 2 million a year? Come on now...there are far worse offenses.
It's sad that those who say he shouldn't ever be in use the defense that somehow the hall is this sacred place full of angels. Ty Cobb was a great hitter; but he was a ruthless SOB who was intensely racist and went out of his way to hurt other players. That behavior is somehow acceptable?
As far as the shoeless joe jackson issue, he ACCEPTED money from those looking to fix the series, even if he did perform well, he TOOK money to fix the series. That to me is a far more grievous offense.
One last thing...would Pete be in the Hall already if he were a Yankee?
Axtell, If he was a Yankee?...hmmm...I think there would MORE people against him than with him. I think that would also depend on the HOF Board of Directors if they were Yankee fans or not. No kidding. Those Board of Directors are nothing but a big joke anyway. More I think of it...Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle...you think those were church-going boys? HAHA! So maybe the HOF Board IS made up of mostly Yankees fans!
Saying its in black and white is such a ridiculous argument the world is not black and white in fact it is mostly gray, and the problem many seem to have is they see the world as black and white and that is only true in the movies. Children who bring even a toy gun are now suspended or expelled from schools depending on the rules under new no tolerance guidelines and children have been expelled for bringing in a 1" plastic GI joe gun that is stupid but since its the rule baseballfanatic must think this is a logical punishment.
<< <i>Saying its in black and white is such a ridiculous argument the world is not black and white in fact it is mostly gray, and the problem many seem to have is they see the world as black and white and that is only true in the movies. Children who bring even a toy gun are now suspended or expelled from schools depending on the rules under new no tolerance guidelines and children have been expelled for bringing in a 1" plastic GI joe gun that is stupid but since its the rule baseballfanatic must think this is a logical punishment. >>
It took three readings, but I believe I finally understand this argument:
1. It is stupid to expel a small child for possession of a 1" G.I. Joe toy gun.
2. The rule that leads to the suspension of the child is a "black and white" rule.
3. Therefore, ALL "black and white" rules are stupid.
As if to reinforce the logical error involved in this argument (the illicit minor fallacy), it is made again when the conclusion is reached that because baseballfanatic supports the results of one rule he therefore supports the results of all rules.
The rule that snared Pete Rose is a "black and white" rule. Period. End of debate on that point. Now, reasonable people can certainly have different opinions about whether that rule ought to be "black and white" or, if it is, what the punishment should be. But, seriously, the attempts at logical proofs that the rule is somehow inherently wrong simply because it has no "gray" are making my head hurt. Please stop.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
We have hundreds and thousands of rules. I dont agree with all of them, and if I actually sat down and evaluated all of them, I wouldnt agree with half of them. But that is my opinion. If I dont follow the rules, there is a penalty. That is a fact. It might be wrong in my own eyes or too harsh. But thats my opinion
I had to weigh in on this. I grew up idolizing all the Big Red Machine guys in the 70's, so I'll admit to some bias here. All I know is Pete played the game harder than anyone I ever saw. He didn't have the best "tools" in the game, but he more than made up for it with his intense style of play. In short, he was one of the best players in the history of baseball. He's got the numbers, the championships, batting titles, etc.
Having said all that, Pete is not a guy I'd want to hang out with, nor would I want my kids to be around him. I wouldn't want them to be like him...just play like him. He was my favorite ballplayer until I was eight years old in '76, when I heard him cuss like a sailor and act like a jerk in general while I was standing in line at a Cincinnati department store to get his autograph on a t-shirt bearing his likeness. From that moment on, Johnny Bench was my favorite Red. Even at that age, however, I could separate the fact that the guy was a jerk, but man oh man, it was fun to watch him play. I continued to collect his cards and still do to this day.
Yes, he bet on baseball. That is indeed just about the worst thing you can do in the sport. The evidence was very strong even as he continued to deny it. I was among the crowd that said Pete should never be allowed in the HOF until he came clean and admitted what he did. When he finally did so, in typical blue-collar Charlie Hustle style, he was not particularly graceful about it. He wasn't eloquent, but rather was a bit brash, and timed the release of his book at the same time that Molitor and Eck got in the Hall. We didn't like his method or timing of delivery, but he did admit to it. I know a LOT of folks who said "not until he admits what he did" that now say "well, never or at least until he dies". His admission and apology to the fans was not pretty, but he did it. I'm not sure what else we all expected from Pete.
Football has a guy who killed his wife in their Hall of Fame. Paul Hornung got caught betting on football, and he's in the NFL HOF. Leo Durocher had associations with known gamblers....Ty Cobb was a real bad dude....We've heard all these arguments. The bottom line to me is that Pete, while maybe not being the best of persons, was one heckuva ballplayer and deserves to be in.
<< <i> I know a LOT of folks who said "not until he admits what he did" that now say "well, never or at least until he dies". His admission and apology to the fans was not pretty, but he did it. I'm not sure what else we all expected from Pete. >>
You aint kidding. He admitted it, then they say 'well he only admitted it to sell his book' He still admitted it though!
It saddens me that there are some people who think Rose is and was the only player to have ever bet on the game.
Exactly. Some will never forgive Pete regardless of what happens. Even if he were to get into the HOF, you will still have this debate about if he SHOULD actually be in the HOF. Its not easy to forgive an a-hole, but personally I think enough is enough and he should be forgiven.
We are in a forgiving society, if him betting on baseball as a manager is a unforgiveable sin concerning the HOF as a player, then we all need to judge ourselves and think about how many times in our lifetime we have KNOWINGLY broken black and white rules.
Pete is unfairly (but he instigates alot of it in actuality) held up on the pedistal of shame. It is human nature to knock down our heros. After all the great Mickey Mantle was a raging chronic drunk that knowingly destroyed his own liver. He then used his clout to "magically" get a liver transplant almost instantly... only to die a miserable death anyway. Funny how people forget the truth when it comes to anyone but Charlie hustle.
No when does the lying stop? 2 decades and he is now coming clean? Had he come clean from the start and 20 years passed maybe. He should have never ever ever bet on baseball. Anything else and I wouldn't care.
You wouldnt care if it was ANYTHING but betting on baseball? Even if he killed someone in a drunken stupor DWI vehicle accident? Please. I understand that the rule is very clear and in every clubhouse. And I agree, for that he should never be able to manage or even coach a baseball team. But everyone is so willing to not even allow this guy to go into the HOF or even work as a freakin administrative assistant for a MLB team....or a batboy for a minor league team! I am so surprised that people are so quick to judge. Rose just happened to get caught before he went into the Hall. If he would have made it in THEN gotten caught, this would only be a discussion about him being allowed back with MLB. I think most of us agree he shouldnt be in any sort of position that can determine the outcome of a game...but to keep him out of the HOF? Obsurd! And again I will state that this is all in the hands of the out of date board of directors at the HOF. They continue to state they have no affiliation with MLB and MLB has no decision making power when it comes to the HOF. I would love to see how in fact MLB is steering the Board of Directors...pockets being lined? Threats of no items to be given for display? Ok, at this point, I am bowing out...this arguement goes round and round and round and round......
Wow, I have never seen so many Pete Rose Kool-Aid drinkers in one place!!
Pete Rose bet on baseball, probably the number one no-no in the game, and he bet on his own team. Now, IF, back in 1989, he admitted it, gave sincere apologies, showed some remorse, and stopped being a selfish jerk, perhaps he should be considered for the HOF at this point.
But look what he did . . . He lied about betting on baseball for 16 years, finally admitted it on TV with about the least sincere apology you could possibly put forth, and the only reasons he admitted he bet on baseball were to: 1) shamelessly promote a book he was releasing, and 2) increase his chances of HOF eligibility. On top of that, he timed this to coincide with the HOF inductions of Eckersly and Molitor, and rudely stole their thunder. On top of that, he still made millions, but could not find a way to pay his taxes and served jail time for it. What a completely stupid, selfish, ass!!
Frankly, I think his strategy worked in reverse, and he put the last nail in the coffin on his HOF chances. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!!
Being media friendly isn't a requirement to get into the hall of fame. Sure he is an major a$$hole, but you look at his stats, then tell me he isn't one of the greatest PLAYERS to ever play the game. this isn't disputed. the question comes if you think the best PLAYERS belong in the HOF or not.
I think they do. I could care less what he did as a manager or anybody does as a retiree.
Comments
<< <i>Where did you go to law school? >>
Busted. (Though I'll take that as a compliment.)
A rule is a rule is terrible reasoning. I'm bored of this and therefore I am tapping out. I am sorry to bore the rest of you who have that we would come up with something good to say instead of our merry-go-round of arguements. And AJW I am sure this will come up again in a few months but I will not engage again
My Auctions
People know me on here for collecting hockey and not much baseball but I do enjoy the history and watching it. I started the poll off and voted 'No, and he should never be.'
I based my own vote on rules are rules, he broke them knowing the circumstances if caught and he was caught so 'You made your bed now lay in it'
In the course of the thread reading what people have said I've gone back and fourth but back to thinking he shouldn't be unless MLB were to scrap the rule which won't happen because it would ruin them.
My next poll will be much lighter.. how about 'Coke or Pepsi?'
You must not be a trial lawyer, or you would see that there really isn't anything black and white to the punishment phase in the "real world". It is my personal opinion (and the majority I may add) that a lifetime ban is unjust in punishing Rose. He belongs in the HOF as a player. He will get there in our lifetime, and you will be free to argue that he shouldn't be because a "rule is a rule!!!!!"
nice argueing by the way, but I doubt we can make much compromise here.
GG
HAHAHAHAHA
GG
No such claim can be made with Pete Rose. He intended to break the rule and he did break the rule. Black and white.
<< <i>Come on knuckles, lets do "Vintage VS Modern" >>
How about..
Which do you prefer:
A cup
B cup
C cup
D cup
E CUP
G CUP
<< <i>Fanatic you have been way off. Are you even reading these posts? Punishments are give out based on circumstances. Take the Pistons and Pacers brawl earlier in the year. Stephen Jackson, Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal all recieved different punishments for violating the same rule. Why were they given different punishments? Because the situations were viewed individually and the governing bodies assessed varying punisments for violating the same rule.
A rule is a rule is terrible reasoning. I'm bored of this and therefore I am tapping out. I am sorry to bore the rest of you who have that we would come up with something good to say instead of our merry-go-round of arguements. And AJW I am sure this will come up again in a few months but I will not engage again
Read every post an am amazed.
Lets see Rule 21d:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
That is the rule.
The circumstances are he broke the rule.
The penalty (and the rule) was printed in black and white long before Mr. Rose was born and hangs in every baseball locker room.
What other circumstances are needed?
The courts are clogged with people trying to find a way that the rules dont apply to them
In any case, I have enjoyed reading the opinions of all involved in this duscussion.
p.s. I'd vote for Pete for the HOF if he was allowed on the ballot. His achievements as a player are too much to ignore. Maybe have on his plaque that as a Manager he violated the betting rule and was banned from any official involvement in MLB for the rest of his life.
Great question!!!
GG
excellent post,
GG
<< <i>Actually, you probably did not break the law when you drove without your sticker. There is likely a requirement that you *intended* to drive without the sticker. Most laws have some requirement that the accused *intended* to break the law. (There are, of course, exceptions, and your example may well be one of them.) So, when you went to court, you argued (basically) that you did not intend to violate the statute. You probably had a record showing you paid the fee for the sticker, further strengthening your argument. So, your case was actually more black and white than you think. It was clear that you did not break the law. (Assuming there was an intention requirement.)
No such claim can be made with Pete Rose. He intended to break the rule and he did break the rule. Black and white. >>
Exactly.
Pete KNEW without a doubt, that if he got busted gambling on MLB, he would be pernamently banned for life. It is a KNOWN rule by every player, manager, and Owner. There is a sign in every clubhouse stating the same; if you get busted for gambling on MLB games, you are out for life.... PERIOD.
It's not like he pulled a Steve Howe or anything, there were no "set" rules when it came to failed drug tests. Same is true with Giambi, Bonds, etc. Prior to this year, if you got busted with the juice, you would get a wrist slap.
True, life is not black and white; there are some gray areas. However, when it comes to gambling in MLB, there is no gray.
No gray? Darryl Strawberry was supposed to be banned on his 3rd and 4th drug violations. Hmmmm.. that sounds at least a little gray.
My Auctions
“Back in my day we would go out drinking after every game,” Howe said. “We would head out to bars and do lines right there on the table. Then we’d pick up some local girls and take them back to our hotel rooms and do more coke. Then we’d wake up in the morning, come to the ballpark all hungover and take some uppers to wake ourselves up. I’ll tell you what we weren’t doing, though: sticking needles in our asses. Notice I said ‘asses’ and not ‘eyeballs.’”
Cocaine is not the only drug missing from major league clubhouses these days. The use of marijuana, alcohol, and cigarettes is on the decline as well.
“You don’t see too much of that stuff anymore. It’s gone out of fashion,” said Cards manager Tony LaRussa. “Players today are much more interested in consuming protein shakes and health food. It seems their only vices these days, if you can call them that, are taking steroids and soliciting underage prostitutes.”
Baseball may never see a return to its glory days of rampant cocaine and alcohol abuse. The league’s anti-drug policies are stronger than ever and it looks as though widespread usage is on a permanent decline. Still, old-timers would like to see some of today’s stars give cocaine a chance.
“Don’t knock it till you try it. That’s what I always say,” said Howe. “Some of today’s players would probably benefit from a couple 8 balls if they would just grow a pair and try it. Take Barry Bonds for instance. If that surly (edited) would take a couple of toots, it would improve his whole outlook on life. He’d be a better interview, too. And how about Rafael Palmeiro? A few quick lines could give him the self-confidence he needs to beat that impotence problem. And if he’s still impotent, at least he’d have a decent excuse.”
__________________
Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain
<< <i>No gray? Darryl Strawberry was supposed to be banned on his 3rd and 4th drug violations. Hmmmm.. that sounds at least a little gray. >>
But that is the whole point. When it came to drugs, there was a gray area (ie Steve Howe and his 7 or 8 trips to the Betty Ford Clinic). With gambling, the precedence was set with the 1919 Black Sox. You gamble, your gone, period.
And if he’s still impotent, at least he’d have a decent excuse.
GG
him since his USC days. With that in mind, I DO NOT think he should be in
the HOF. Here is why.
Pulled straight from the Official National Baseball Hall of Fame:
"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.
Step by Step.
1. Player's record - I see this as the player's stats...
2. Playing ability - Little bit vague. Does this mean that if a player has great
ability, but not the record, he can get in? Does ANYONE doubt that Darryl
Strawberry had great "playing ability," but drugs got in the way?
3. Integrity - Does anyone disagree that Pete Rose has no integrity? First he
denies for 10 years that he bet on baseball and then when it looks like this
is the only way that he could get into the HOF is admit it. THE RULES CLEARLY
TAKE A PLAYERS INTEGRITY INTO CONSIDERATION.
4. Sportmanship - Did Pete Rose's teammates like him? Probably.
5. Character - Did Pete Rose lie and continue to lie for 10 years? This kills Mr.
Rose as well.
6. Contributions to the team - Little bit vague, but I'll give Mr. Rose the
benefit of the doubt.
With this is mind, it is clear that voting CAN BE BASED on more than what a
player did on the field. If fact, stats account for only 1 out of 6 considerations.
So, not being a jerk IS A REQUIREMENT to get into the HOF.
By my account, McGwire and Rose pass considerations numbers 1, 2, 4 and 6,
but fail 3 and 5. As such, I do not think either Rose or McGwire should get in.
Is the rule on gambling a ban from baseball or the hall of fame? Are they one in the same? Are the one in the same in the Hall of Fame's eyes?
The truth is, I have no problem with Pete Rose being banned from baseball. My point was 4256 hits BEFORE gambling on baseball, and what he did ON THE FIELD should be rewarded in the Hall.
And for all the talk of Strawberry, Howe, Giambi, and Bonds, I'll agree a drug rule is not so definitive. But I thought Gaylord Perry admitted to cheating, using spitters and vasoline, and he's in the hall. I thought there was something in the rule book about that.
So to sum up, I think Pete Rose should never be allowed to manage or participate in a MLB event again, but I believe he should be in the hall of fame for his baseball accomplishments.
<< <i>My point was 4256 hits BEFORE gambling on baseball, and what he did ON THE FIELD should be rewarded in the Hall. >>
Remember just a couple of years ago, Pete swore up and down that he never, ever bet on baseball. Now he says that he did bet but only while he was the manager and never against them. Is there perhaps a reasonable doubt that Rose did bet while he was playing? Consider this, after he got the life-time ban, he bragged about playing the horses and NFL games. If you are attempting to clear your name as a gambler, the LAST thing you do is gamble more. Personally, I think he did.
<< <i>But I thought Gaylord Perry admitted to cheating, using spitters and vasoline, and he's in the hall. I thought there was something in the rule book about that. >>
Yes there is... But does that crime carry the same weight as gambling? According to MLB rules, they are two completely different situations that carry different punishments. You get caught cheating and you get suspended. You get caught gambling and you get a life-time ban.
But hey, that's just my $0.02 and that's what makes this country great; we can agree to disagree
This is a split topic i'll agree. I agree with bigredmachine completely on this one. his credentials as a player without a doubt put him easily in the HOF. He entirely screwed it up AFTER he quit playing. I agree there should be a distinction.
HOF as a player.
HOS as a manager. (hall of shame)
There! we all win.
GG
I view a player's playing career as a totally separate career than his managerial career. I say this because if Pete Rose had decided to simply retire when he stopped playing, he would be in the HOF today. Now, what would happen if he would have retired in 1987 rather than manage... he would have been inducted in 1992. Let's say he came back and coached in 1993 and was then found to be gambling... would they revoke his HOF entry, which he acheived as a player, because of gambling he did as a manager? I think he would just be thrown out of baseball at that point, but it wouldn't have any affect on what he did as a player on the field nor his HOF induction.
Theoretically, this could happen to someone today... let's use Frank Robinson for example. Let's say he went crazy and decided to start betting on games and got caught. Would they remove him from the HOF? I highly doubt it because what he is doing today as a manager has absolutely no bearing on what he did during his playing days.
The reality is that Pete Rose is unlikely to ever be reinstated into MLB. Baseball will continually point to him as the modern day example of the 1919 Black Sox that not as many people are familair with. Pete Rose is MLB's poster child of what not to do and the consequences of violating the rules. I fail to see how MLB would really benefit at this point or any time in the future from allowing him back, it would only spark controversy and cast an odd shadow on the game.
He bet on baseball - no doubt. He is a compulsive gambler and an arrogant SOB. I trust he never bet on a game he could directly influence. He had a chance to heal any wounds with MLB if he went about it in a fashion of admission and contrition. But he remained/remains an arrogant SOB.....ala Ty Cobb.
Put him in. He was an amazing baseball player with few to no peers. No steriods - just unrelenting. No enhancements aiding his performance. Just a different malady casting a shadow on his on the field accomplishments. Going forward, un-proven yet definite juicers will get in. Put him in.
He made poor choices OFF THE FIELD as a manager, and yes, made it worse by denying the charges. However, these occurred AFTER his playing career, and should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his rightful induction into the hall as a PLAYER.
Keep him out of baseball. Don't allow him near the game in any capacity in the front office, as a manager, anything.
But to deny him his rightful place in the hall of fame is an absolute atrocity.
It makes me laugh that some addictions (drug, alcohol, steroids) are tolerable (even though illegal in society), and those guilty of such offenses are given multiple chance to rebound. But somehow someone betting on games (which is legal in this country, albeit in some states), is somehow so horrific that we need to ban people forever?
Yes, I can see back when players were scrapping to make ends meet, sure, fixes might be on. But now, when the average player is making over 2 million a year? Come on now...there are far worse offenses.
It's sad that those who say he shouldn't ever be in use the defense that somehow the hall is this sacred place full of angels. Ty Cobb was a great hitter; but he was a ruthless SOB who was intensely racist and went out of his way to hurt other players. That behavior is somehow acceptable?
As far as the shoeless joe jackson issue, he ACCEPTED money from those looking to fix the series, even if he did perform well, he TOOK money to fix the series. That to me is a far more grievous offense.
One last thing...would Pete be in the Hall already if he were a Yankee?
If he was a Yankee?...hmmm...I think there would MORE people against him than with him. I think that would also depend on the HOF Board of Directors if they were Yankee fans or not. No kidding. Those Board of Directors are nothing but a big joke anyway.
More I think of it...Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle...you think those were church-going boys? HAHA! So maybe the HOF Board IS made up of mostly Yankees fans!
<< <i>Saying its in black and white is such a ridiculous argument the world is not black and white in fact it is mostly gray, and the problem many seem to have is they see the world as black and white and that is only true in the movies. Children who bring even a toy gun are now suspended or expelled from schools depending on the rules under new no tolerance guidelines and children have been expelled for bringing in a 1" plastic GI joe gun that is stupid but since its the rule baseballfanatic must think this is a logical punishment. >>
It took three readings, but I believe I finally understand this argument:
1. It is stupid to expel a small child for possession of a 1" G.I. Joe toy gun.
2. The rule that leads to the suspension of the child is a "black and white" rule.
3. Therefore, ALL "black and white" rules are stupid.
As if to reinforce the logical error involved in this argument (the illicit minor fallacy), it is made again when the conclusion is reached that because baseballfanatic supports the results of one rule he therefore supports the results of all rules.
The rule that snared Pete Rose is a "black and white" rule. Period. End of debate on that point. Now, reasonable people can certainly have different opinions about whether that rule ought to be "black and white" or, if it is, what the punishment should be. But, seriously, the attempts at logical proofs that the rule is somehow inherently wrong simply because it has no "gray" are making my head hurt. Please stop.
We have hundreds and thousands of rules.
I dont agree with all of them, and if I actually sat down and evaluated all of them, I wouldnt agree with half of them. But that is my opinion.
If I dont follow the rules, there is a penalty.
That is a fact.
It might be wrong in my own eyes or too harsh.
But thats my opinion
Having said all that, Pete is not a guy I'd want to hang out with, nor would I want my kids to be around him. I wouldn't want them to be like him...just play like him. He was my favorite ballplayer until I was eight years old in '76, when I heard him cuss like a sailor and act like a jerk in general while I was standing in line at a Cincinnati department store to get his autograph on a t-shirt bearing his likeness. From that moment on, Johnny Bench was my favorite Red. Even at that age, however, I could separate the fact that the guy was a jerk, but man oh man, it was fun to watch him play. I continued to collect his cards and still do to this day.
Yes, he bet on baseball. That is indeed just about the worst thing you can do in the sport. The evidence was very strong even as he continued to deny it. I was among the crowd that said Pete should never be allowed in the HOF until he came clean and admitted what he did. When he finally did so, in typical blue-collar Charlie Hustle style, he was not particularly graceful about it. He wasn't eloquent, but rather was a bit brash, and timed the release of his book at the same time that Molitor and Eck got in the Hall. We didn't like his method or timing of delivery, but he did admit to it. I know a LOT of folks who said "not until he admits what he did" that now say "well, never or at least until he dies". His admission and apology to the fans was not pretty, but he did it. I'm not sure what else we all expected from Pete.
Football has a guy who killed his wife in their Hall of Fame. Paul Hornung got caught betting on football, and he's in the NFL HOF. Leo Durocher had associations with known gamblers....Ty Cobb was a real bad dude....We've heard all these arguments. The bottom line to me is that Pete, while maybe not being the best of persons, was one heckuva ballplayer and deserves to be in.
Todd
<< <i> I know a LOT of folks who said "not until he admits what he did" that now say "well, never or at least until he dies". His admission and apology to the fans was not pretty, but he did it. I'm not sure what else we all expected from Pete.
>>
You aint kidding. He admitted it, then they say 'well he only admitted it to sell his book' He still admitted it though!
It saddens me that there are some people who think Rose is and was the only player to have ever bet on the game.
We are in a forgiving society, if him betting on baseball as a manager is a unforgiveable sin concerning the HOF as a player, then we all need to judge ourselves and think about how many times in our lifetime we have KNOWINGLY broken black and white rules.
Pete is unfairly (but he instigates alot of it in actuality) held up on the pedistal of shame. It is human nature to knock down our heros. After all the great Mickey Mantle was a raging chronic drunk that knowingly destroyed his own liver. He then used his clout to "magically" get a liver transplant almost instantly... only to die a miserable death anyway. Funny how people forget the truth when it comes to anyone but Charlie hustle.
GG
James
I understand that the rule is very clear and in every clubhouse. And I agree, for that he should never be able to manage or even coach a baseball team.
But everyone is so willing to not even allow this guy to go into the HOF or even work as a freakin administrative assistant for a MLB team....or a batboy for a minor league team! I am so surprised that people are so quick to judge.
Rose just happened to get caught before he went into the Hall. If he would have made it in THEN gotten caught, this would only be a discussion about him being allowed back with MLB. I think most of us agree he shouldnt be in any sort of position that can determine the outcome of a game...but to keep him out of the HOF? Obsurd!
And again I will state that this is all in the hands of the out of date board of directors at the HOF. They continue to state they have no affiliation with MLB and MLB has no decision making power when it comes to the HOF. I would love to see how in fact MLB is steering the Board of Directors...pockets being lined? Threats of no items to be given for display?
Ok, at this point, I am bowing out...this arguement goes round and round and round and round......
Pete Rose bet on baseball, probably the number one no-no in the game, and he bet on his own team. Now, IF, back in 1989, he admitted it, gave sincere apologies, showed some remorse, and stopped being a selfish jerk, perhaps he should be considered for the HOF at this point.
But look what he did . . . He lied about betting on baseball for 16 years, finally admitted it on TV with about the least sincere apology you could possibly put forth, and the only reasons he admitted he bet on baseball were to: 1) shamelessly promote a book he was releasing, and 2) increase his chances of HOF eligibility. On top of that, he timed this to coincide with the HOF inductions of Eckersly and Molitor, and rudely stole their thunder. On top of that, he still made millions, but could not find a way to pay his taxes and served jail time for it. What a completely stupid, selfish, ass!!
Frankly, I think his strategy worked in reverse, and he put the last nail in the coffin on his HOF chances. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!!
I think they do. I could care less what he did as a manager or anybody does as a retiree.
GG
I thought this baby was put to rest.
My Auctions