Poll: Is it time to let Rose back in baseball?

yankeeno7

Personally, I think he should be allowed back in baseball but NOT as a manager. If he wants to help develop players, let him do it as a bench coach or hitting/fielding coach. And put that man in the HOF!

yankeeno7

I know we have had many discussions about if Pete Rose should be allowed back. But over time, people's opinions may change. (and board members as well). This recent story is the one that prompted me to do this poll....
CINCINNATI— Pete Rose questioned why he hasn't gotten a second chance from Major League Baseball to get back into the game on Saturday, saying he'd still like to manage.

The 70-year-old hits king told an audience that he deserves another chance after acknowledging that he bet on baseball, something he denied for years.
Pete Rose says he wants to manage again. (AP Photo)

"I've taken responsibility for my life," Rose said. "Baseball isn't good for second chances — not for gamblers. They are for people who take drugs. They are for people who beat up their wives. They are for people who drink a lot of alcohol. I screwed up. I wish I could change it."

The former Cincinnati Reds player and manager was banned for life in 1989 for betting on baseball games, including Reds games. He has petitioned MLB and commissioner Bud Selig has given no indication he's leaning toward reinstating Rose, who holds baseball's record with 4,256 hits.

Rose hoped he would be reinstated after he acknowledged in his second autobiography in 2004 that he bet on baseball, something he had vehemently denied until then. Instead, there was a backlash over the book.

Rose reiterated that he's no longer focused on getting inducted into baseball's Hall of Fame.

"I want to be a manager, that's the only role," said Rose, who turned 70 on April 14. "But I'm running out of time. I want to teach young players."

Rose was the keynote speaker at a gala of the Ohio Justice & Policy Center. He said he has redeemed himself and is waiting for baseball to act.

"It's a like a singer getting caught running a red light and not being able to sing again," Rose said. "That's not America. I'm a baseball player. I can go on every talk show and say I'm sorry and some people don't want to hear you. That's not fair."

One of the approximately 300 guests in the audience was the federal judge who sentenced him to five months in jail in 1990 for failing to report income from gambling on his taxes.

"I don't go to many banquets where I sit with the judge that sent me to prison," Rose said, drawing laughter. "I'm not bitter at anybody. I made the mistake."

The Ohio Justice & Policy Center is a nonprofit organization working for reform in Ohio's criminal justice system. The theme of the gala was making Cincinnati a city of redemption.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2011-05-14/pete-rose-says-he-still-wants-to-manage#ixzz1MRnQ8zqV

Sean1125

Should never have been banned in the first place.

57loaded

link to his agreement

i'd like to see him back. Selig's recent silence speaks volumes. Selig will offer to discuss and do studies and bring things to the table, but rarely make a decision of such importance.

we'll need a different commissioner, IMO.

grote15

The irony is that he would have been reinstated long ago but chose to keep lying about betting on baseball instead. Pete has only Pete to blame for his banishment.

calaban7

I think Pete should be the head bookie for the US Federal booking agency. We could call it the ministry of fairness , for those too stupid to place a bet on a baseball game or too stupid to know how to place a well placed bet.

We could use the proceeds to help fund the 72% of undocumented folks that are currently collecting some sort of entitlement.

Oh yea, didn't Pete sign an agreement that put him where he is now ?

Wow , he must have not meant what he agreed too.----- Sonny

PowderedH2O

Reinstate him. Why not? The only manager job Pete is going to get is at the very low level minor leagues, or at an independent minor league. He'll drum up some business. He'll bring some publicity to the team and the league. He'll be watched like a hawk by baseball, so he won't get the chance to gamble again (probably). I doubt it would hurt anything. And, quite honestly, I think the Black Sox were banned for life. So, life shouldn't include death. I seriously doubt that Joe Jackson would get elected to the Hall of Fame, just because of the doubt of his integrity. I'm not sure that Pete Rose would get elected, although I would hope so. I don't believe there has ever been anything shown that Pete ever betted AGAINST his team. Actually, I'm not sure of how many current voters actually saw Pete play in his prime.

zendude

Absolutely not.

rbdjr1

Yes, yes, yes!

Charlie Hustle was one of the best players in the history of the game.

He is baseball! Let him back pleeeeeze!

rd

Garabaldi

He has no one to blame but himself. Not only did he bet on baseball he continued to lie about for years and years.

hhmag70

According to the Dowd Report itself, "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Reds."[2] This is in contrast to the case of "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and his teammates in the Black Sox Scandal, who were accused of intentionally losing the 1919 World Series. Those critical of Rose's behavior, including Ohio's own Hall of Fame baseball reporter Hal McCoy, have observed that "the major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game."

The above was quoted from Wiki.


Without evidence that he bet against the Reds and harmed the integrity of the game I see no reason to continue the ban. Believing in his team and putting money on them to win should not be such a big deal. Betting against the Reds would be a complete different story, but it has never come out that he had done that. Any first time offender that has been caught using any PED has done more damage to the true integrity of the game than betting on your own team to win has done. Not being forthcoming and truthful during the investigation should not have been a lifetime offense that includes being unable to be enshrined into the HOF for a career of statistics. To me, there is no comparison to this and the Black Sox scandle.

grote15

The problem with the argument that "Well, Rose never bet against the Reds," (other than the fact that we cannot conclusively state that since Rose has lied about virtually everything when it comes to this topic), and the fact that the rule is not that it's somehow less of a violation to bet for your team in the eyes of the game, is that on those nights that Rose did not bet on his team to win, he is essentially betting against them in the eyes of the bookies.

The bottom line, once again, is not should Rose be reinstated. Rose signed an agreement with the late Bart Giamatti in which he essentially VOLUNTARILY agreed to a lifetime ban from the game of baseball. That agreement notwithstanding, he had MANY chances over the years to come clean and admit his wrongdoing. Instead, he chose to continue lying and steadfastly deny that he ever bet on baseball, all if which was obviously untrue. Even his supporters, as baseball said, like Mike Schmidt and Johnny Bench got sick of his BS. Bottom line: Rose put himself in this position and has no one to blame but himself. To make any comparisons to other transgressions and penalties is disingenuous and not relevant to this particular case.

jivan

NO, NEVER, NOT EVER....NOT EVEN A BALLBOY FOR THE NATIONALS..NOTHING.. THE LOWEST FORM OF LIFE...THEY SHOULD BAN HIM FROM EVEN BUYING BASEBALL CARDS AT WALMART....THYE SHOULD NEVER EVEN ALLOW HIM TO WEAR A JOCKSTRAP ANYMORE..OK, GOODNITE NOW

hhmag70

<< <i>The problem with the argument that "Well, Rose never bet against the Reds," (other than the fact that we cannot conclusively state that since Rose has lied about virtually everything when it comes to this topic), and the fact that the rule is not that it's somehow less of a violation to bet for your team in the eyes of the game, is that on those nights that Rose did not bet on his team to win, he is essentially betting against them in the eyes of the bookies.

The bottom line, once again, is not should Rose be reinstated. Rose signed an agreement with the late Bart Giamatti in which he essentially VOLUNTARILY agreed to a lifetime ban from the game of baseball. That agreement notwithstanding, he had MANY chances over the years to come clean and admit his wrongdoing. Instead, he chose to continue lying and steadfastly deny that he ever bet on baseball, all if which was obviously untrue. Even his supporters, as baseball said, like Mike Schmidt and Johnny Bench got sick of his BS. Bottom line: Rose put himself in this position and has no one to blame but himself. To make any comparisons to other transgressions and penalties is disingenuous and not relevant to this particular case. >>



In the "eyes of the bookies" means nothing to the outcome of the game being played.

The VOLUNTARILY signed agreement for the lifetime ban also meant under baseball rules he could apply for reinstatement after 1 year. So knowing that (or being told that) at the time of the agreement means that the term "lifetime" meant nothing to both Rose and MLB (why else have the rule to be able to apply on the books?). At the time of the agreement the HOF did not have a hard and fast rule that would have kept him out, that was added in 1991 after the agreement was reached. IMO this added to the punishment that was negotiated and signed after the fact and may or may not have made a difference as to an agreement being made or not.

He has since come forward and admitted placing bets, so to me that argument no longer holds as much weight as it once did.

grote15

If I'm a bookie and the manger of the team is placing bets on his team to win sometimes and not betting on them to win other times, it sends a clear message that said manger doesn't have much faith in his team to win on those games he doesn't place a bet. Any way you look at it, that''s a compromise in the integrity of the game.

And yes, he has finally admitted what everyone knew all these years and what he continued to insist never happened, that he bet on baseball. Heck, he even signed balls for money that state "I'm sorry I bet on baseball," (such a marketing opportunity! LOL!), but his actions continue to denigrate the game he claims to love (like launching a book signing for the book where he finally admits he bet on baseball on the same weekend as the HOF induction--real classy move there, Pete), and if the players who played with him and initially supported his reinstatement are now sick of him, why should we feel any differently at this point? Once again: Pete would have been reinstated LONG AGO but he chose not to be by his own actions. Pete has only Pete to blame for his situation.

hhmag70

<< <i>



hhmag70, I'm not arguing that the Blacksox scandal isn't much more egregious than Rose's actions. Only a total moron would think that throwing the World Series is on par or less damaging to the game than a manger who bets on baseball games. I'm speaking only of Joe Jackson's supposed involvement in the fix. Certainly looking at his stats, one cannot accuse him of trying to throw the games. >>




I have never read enough to form an opinion on Jackson and his case one way or the other. Just the stats alone would not convince me because there is a chance he could have still been involved and been the "straight man" so that it did not look so clear that it was a fix. I really have no opinion on his involveent without learning more.

grote15

"I want to be a manager, that's the only role," said Rose, who turned 70 on April 14. "But I'm running out of time. I want to teach young players how to place parlay and proposition bets."

The above last sentence was inadvertently truncated by the author of the article. I've made the appropriate correction..

hhmag70

<< <i>If I'm a bookie and the manger of the team is placing bets on his team to win sometimes and not betting on them to win other times, it sends a clear message that said manger doesn't have much faith in his team to win on those games he doesn't place a bet. Any way you look at it, that''s a compromise in the integrity of the game.

And yes, he has finally admitted what everyone knew all these years and what he continued to insist never happened, that he bet on baseball. Heck, he even signed balls for money that state "I'm sorry I bet on baseball," (such a marketing opportunity! LOL!), but his actions continue to denigrate the game he claims to love (like launching a book signing for the book where he finally admits he bet on baseball on the same weekend as the HOF induction--real classy move there, Pete), and if the players who played with him and initially supported his reinstatement are now sick of him, why should we feel any differently at this point? Once again: Pete would have been reinstated LONG AGO but he chose not to be by his own actions. Pete has only Pete to blame for his situation. >>



I do not see the game being harmed because some bookies do not think Pete had faith in his team or not. That did not have an effect on the game being played that day. If anything that is a problem (his lack of faith in the team to win) that Marge should have been dealing with as his employer.

I do agree that Rose dug his own hole and he was a douche for lying the whole time, but there are plenty of classless douchebags still involved with MLB. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Pete Rose fan but I do not agree with how the situation has played out.

hhmag70

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>



hhmag70, I'm not arguing that the Blacksox scandal isn't much more egregious than Rose's actions. Only a total moron would think that throwing the World Series is on par or less damaging to the game than a manger who bets on baseball games. I'm speaking only of Joe Jackson's supposed involvement in the fix. Certainly looking at his stats, one cannot accuse him of trying to throw the games. >>




I have never read enough to form an opinion on Jackson and his case one way or the other. Just the stats alone would not convince me because there is a chance he could have still been involved and been the "straight man" so that it did not look so clear that it was a fix. I really have no opinion on his involveent without learning more. >>





Your statements are ridiculous. You defend a degenerate whose lied and gambled for decades. All the while, without even know about Jackson's case, you're inclined to automatically state that he "could have still been involved" and come up with a purely hypothetical example of how. I'm MUCH more inclined to believe that Rose "could have" bet against his team. See how that "could have" stuff works? >>



No, what it means is I have read about Rose and have not read about any proof he bet against the Reds. Unlike you, just a stat line (for Jackson) does not give me enough information to base an opinion one way or the other as I clearly stated.

melvin289

I once heard a TV sports announcer say: "A Rose by any other name, still stinks up baseball."

I don't remember who said it as this was years ago.

Ron

PowderedH2O

But the question still remains this: If Rose were reinstated, who would hire him as a manager? Nobody. Not anyone at any level above Class A at least. I think if Bud Selig wanted to really stick it to Pete, he WOULD reinstate him and then watch as Rose can't find employment and still might not make the HOF. After all of this, I still like Pete and I still remember his hustle and I still would like to see him in Cooperstown.

stevek

MLB to us is entertainment, but to them it's a business, first and foremost...and everything else, and I do mean everything else is secondary.

So...that being a given...what possible business benefit to them would be derived from allowing Pete Rose back into baseball, versus the negative backlash involved? How about nothing. that's what. So they're not gonna do it because it wouldn't be good for business.

Case closed.

And just in case anyone is thinking about a Michael Vick - Pete Rose comparison that the NFL let Michael Vick back into the game...that one is easy to explain...having Michael Vick sells tickets...Michael Vick makes money for the NFL.

Case closed, locked and sealed.

Garabaldi

If MLB does let him back into baseball, it would look like it is OK to bet on the game. The lifetime ban makes other think twice before placing a bet on the game.

Connecticoin

Never.

If he had admitted his wrongdoings to begin with, maybe. But his admission and "apology" was about as insincere as can be, way too little, way too late. He also spoiled Eck's HOF induction with his pathetic grandstanding.

Estil

<< <i>Should never have been banned in the first place. >>



While I would very much someday like to see Mr. Rose in the HOF, the commish at the time (Mr. Giammanti) figured he had Mr. Rose dead to rights. Though correct me if I'm wrong, I thought it was only supposed to be a lifetime banishment if you bet against your team (and/or God forbid, intentionally throw the games for gambling purposes); otherwise he was only supposed to be out for a year. Am I wrong?

Other than that, the rules on gambling in baseball are in every clubhouse so it's not like the commish really did the wrong thing, at least initially.

Estil

<< <i>Even his supporters, as baseball said, like Mike Schmidt and Johnny Bench got sick of his BS. >>



You are right about Mr. Schmidt (and even used his 1995 HOF speech to plead his case for his former teammate), but Mr. Bench has always been the leader of the opposition (so to speak). He has always been against Mr. Rose going into the HOF.

SanctionII

No.

ddfamf

Baseball should definitely pardon Rose and allow him back into the game............as soon as MLB allows its players, coaches, and managers to bet on the baseball games in which they are involved.

twiley

Just keeping score.

18 Yes (combined with can or can't manage a team)
16 No

So far the "Yes" voters are winning.

I think he should be allowed in baseball but very restricted and heavily monitored. As someone posted before. He couldn't coach a MLB team only a Minor League team. I don't believe he should be in the HOF before he passes. I think he belongs in the HOF with a documentation on how Pete Rose gambled on Baseball. Pete was my favorite player to watch and see play at games when he was in Philadelphia. I remember seeing him bat against Nolan Ryan which was a real treat. After he got caught gambling I really believed him. Then later I found out he was lying. Ever since then I lost all respect for him. He shouldn't get into the HOF in his lifetime. Just my opinion.

pitboss

My vote is no way and so is my wife's so that makes it even.

MCMLVTopps

Rose knew exactly what he was doing when he was doing it. He knew it was wrong and broke the rules. Rose stone-walled it for a long time before having a "come to Jesus" moment and thought fessing up would pave the way to reiinstatement and eventually the HOF. Unfortunately, this very talented player allowed his overwhelming hubris cloud his decision making.


You do the crime, you do the time. If you let him back it sets in motion excuses for others who travel this same path and get caught.

I say rot.

KalineFan

What Pete Rose did is violate the #1 rule in Baseball....NO BETTING.

Now, in my humble opinion after stating this.....

All the "NO" votes are using this very rule to say no, he did the crime, so he does the time.

Well....while I'm not 100% sure about letting him into the HOF, or back into baseball in some form for that
matter, I would have to say (AGAIN, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION!) that there are many, many, many, many
more crimes that people have been convicted of, done their time and are back in society, or what have you.....

There are guys who commit MURDER and much more gruesome crimes against humanity and they get back
paroled after doing much much less time that Pete has done for his crime(s). I'm not saying this is right,
but.......

Lets also tell the truth here (this is an ironic statement actually)....How many times do we hear people
deny something and keep denying it and then finally after long periods of time, finally fess up?
How many of us tell little white lies about little things in life....come on.....people tell lies all the time
about things because they know if they tell the truth they have to face the consequences on them?
So they lie/don't tell the truth or tell only a partial truth.

I'd like to get over this and say, put the vote to the fans....make this one exception. Let us vote and
see how many people actually would vote to either tell Pete YES or NO, you can be voted into the HOF
by the sportswriters and a committee of current HOFer's.

Just one man's opinion.

Tony
KalineFan

FORGOT SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT AGAIN R.I.P. #3 Harmon Killebrew

MCMLVTopps

Kaline Fan...

You have to keep in mind the prime issue is maintaining the integrity of the game and you simply cannot use the analogy of murderers in society, etc, etc. MLB players are unique unto themselves, a small group and we, as fans, expect the game to be as pure as it can be, not tainted or skewed in some way by a bozo who thinks he can do whatever he wants to violate, bend or skirt the rules. If he was caught smoking pot in December, (as an example), I say no big deal. What he did was done while wearing the uniform, not during the off-season. Obviously, had he murdered somebody, he'd have gone to the slammer, but, betting during the off-season would have not been an issue. Didn't Paul Hornug get stung for betting on football...same problem.

I could care less what Rose did outside the limits of the game, that is a civil matter, what he did inside the game was clearly, and without doubt a violation, and he knew it. He had his "come to Jesus" moment as a last hope. I say no vote to the fans, the MLB Commissioner is, and should be the ultimate and final arbiter of rule violations. If you opened the vote on Rose to the public, undoubtedly Reds fans and many others would vote by the zillions to reinstate him...the rub is that now a precedent would be established and in turn, future gambling issues found within MLB players would be impossible to address and recitfy.

He was an outstanding player, but his hubris toasted his brain and he immolated his realtionship with MLB...he has nobody to blame but himself.

I still say no mercy, not now, not next week, or EVER.

Brick

Joe Jackson should be in the HOF. I say Pete should be allowed back in baseball (qualified for entry into HOF) but NOT in his lifetime.

DIMEMAN

I can't say YES loud enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is the all hit leader for ___ sakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO comparison to what he did and what Joe Jackson did. Jackson threw games. Pete bet on games, but not Reds games (at least not to lose). He never threw a game!!!!!

He derserves to be in the Hall!!!! One of the best players EVER !!!!!

ernie11

I was going to say "No", but the way my fav team (Phillies) have been hitting the past 4 games, I'm changing my mind. I think even at 70 he could help make their bats pop again!

grote15

There is NO comparison to what he did and what Joe Jackson did. Jackson threw games.

Wrong. Jackson had the best series statistically of any player in that Series. Does that sound like a player who "threw" games?

And how do you know that Rose never bet against the Reds? He's lied about virtually everything so I certainly would not assume that he didn't bet aginst the Reds either.

As for the all-time hits record, I remember during an interview he was asked "How much did being a manager and penciling yourself into the lineup every day help you to break the record?"

Rose was a great player on the field, to be sure, but is rather oveerated because of the hits record, IMO..

Estil

<< <i>
There is NO comparison to what he did and what Joe Jackson did. Jackson threw games. >>



I thought Jackson did NOT throw any games? If anything he did quite well in that WS and only got banned because he supposedly wouldn't rat on his teammates?

Dave99B

yes.