Should MLB reinstate Pete Rose?

I like how the guy in jail can still vote no

NEVER!

If he bet on games he wasn't part of, then maybe.

@doubledragon said:
Someone please post bail for Bronco, I know the food in there has to be terrible.

Ive always been the one that would eat the food anywhere !
I visit strangers in nursing homes at mealtimes for free grub

@perkdog said:

@bronco2078 said:

@doubledragon said:
Someone please post bail for Bronco, I know the food in there has to be terrible.

Ive always been the one that would eat the food anywhere !
I visit strangers in nursing homes at mealtimes for free grub

I hope your not familiar with the lunch meat that has a rainbow tint to it 😝

if its sliced ham , thats an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light in a thin layer of fatty liquid on the surface.

safe to eat

@DIMEMAN said:

@Tabe said:

@DIMEMAN said:

To me taking PED's is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse that betting!!! Rose should be in!!

What's the reasoning here? Betting on games undermines the integrity of the competition itself (see: Black Sox, 1919). With PEDs, players are still trying to compete and win.

BIG difference to "THROW" games and just betting money on games. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Pete Rose bet on games in which he had decision-making influence. He admitted changing his pitching decisions based on whether he had money on games. That may not be throwing games but it's not putting forth a best effort to win, which is close to the same thing and again undermines the integrity of the competition itself.

Its not a true HOF until he gets in,

@Tabe said:

@DIMEMAN said:

@Tabe said:

@DIMEMAN said:

To me taking PED's is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse that betting!!! Rose should be in!!

What's the reasoning here? Betting on games undermines the integrity of the competition itself (see: Black Sox, 1919). With PEDs, players are still trying to compete and win.

BIG difference to "THROW" games and just betting money on games. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Pete Rose bet on games in which he had decision-making influence. He admitted changing his pitching decisions based on whether he had money on games. That may not be throwing games but it's not putting forth a best effort to win, which is close to the same thing and again undermines the integrity of the competition itself.

PEDs undermine integrity, cheating undermines integrity, but gambling is the only thing that gets you banned for life. The MLB only cares about integrity when there's a monetary impact. The MLBs position is utterly incoherent and frankly silly at this point. Think about this, many people convicted of murder the same year Pete was banned are back on the street by now. Joe Jackson should make it in before Rose though.

@MCMLVTopps said:
This link will tell you everything you want to know about banned MLB players. Did you know MICKEY MANTLE was banned in 1980 and 1983??? Yup, read on.

This will also give factual insight into why Rose will NEVER make it to Cooperstown. His arrogance, perennial denials and obvious managerial influence of actual games he managed by manipulating player moves were critical to his banishment. It is still not clear whether or not he bet on the Reds to win or lose, but clearly he violated MLB rules. To allow him back into the MLB family would set a precedent for any future gambling issues...and cannot be allowed. No question he was a great player, but his arrogance sunk him. Only logical and clear thinking will lead to the conclusion of his current position in MLB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_Major_League_Baseball

Great player and competitor, horrible horrible horrible human being.

No... But on the other hand... Given what has transpired in more recent times in connection with others makes this seem trivial by comparison. Just writing no is a tad problematic. I have admired Pete Rose as an athlete and player and it ends there.

But there are others that have emerged from a more recent time frame...in various occupational capacities whom will not be named... that simply fail to get to the Rose status as an athlete and player or whatever that status maybe for the occupation of those others. But there was a choice made as reflected by conduct that violated the trust that we placed on them. And it should not be lost that moral character is not what it once was. But that is subject of what will likely be debated for the foreseeable future. And that is the problem.

Has he met the conditions of his reinstatement? I don't remember them verbatim but I know they exist, right? Can someone post those.

@dallasactuary said:

The answer is obvious, and the force of will it takes Rose's defenders to not see it staggers the imagination. Rose threw baseball games, MLB has proof that Rose threw baseball games, and throwing games is a felony. Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban to keep his pathetic, cheating, criminal ass out of prison. The depth of the hole in which Pete Rose's character is buried is exceeded only by the height of the mountain where his ego lives. Pete Rose has applied for reinstatement so people will talk about Pete Rose; his chances of making the HOF are precisely zero, that will never change, and he knows it.

The people who want him in know absolutely NOTHING about the Hall of Fame and what it stands for.

I have said it before, look into Pete's history and you will find a totally worthless POS of a human being. Check out his attraction to "young" women, my gosh, this man makes me sick.

A Baseball Hall of Fame with him in means NOTHING!

@dallasactuary said:
Rose was banned for life, and Rose agreed to be banned for life. If you're able, take off your rose-colored glasses just long enough to ask yourself why Rose would have agreed to be banned for life. He didn't have to, obviously, and his chances of being reinstated some day in the future would have been greatly improved if he had fought it to his last breath.

But he didn't fight it at all, he agreed to it. The single only explanation that passes the laugh test is that there was something that Rose considered worse than being banned from baseball for the rest of his life. MLB didn't threaten to kill him or kill his family. MLB didn't threaten to visit plagues upon him or damn him to eternal hellfire, either. So what was it that MLB was going to do to Rose if he didn't agree to the ban, that Rose feared more than being banned for life?

The answer is obvious, and the force of will it takes Rose's defenders to not see it staggers the imagination. Rose threw baseball games, MLB has proof that Rose threw baseball games, and throwing games is a felony. Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban to keep his pathetic, cheating, criminal ass out of prison. The depth of the hole in which Pete Rose's character is buried is exceeded only by the height of the mountain where his ego lives. Pete Rose has applied for reinstatement so people will talk about Pete Rose; his chances of making the HOF are precisely zero, that will never change, and he knows it.

Threw, manipulated, acted on inside information and last but most certainly not least he bet from his clubhouse during games....
...I say nay. Man was out of control and a criminal.

@DIMEMAN said:
He NEVER threw games! He should be judged by his playing not as a gambler or manager.

Why did Pete Rose agree to a lifetime ban? Simple question for which I can think of only one plausible answer. If you've got another, I'd love to hear it.

@bigmarty58 said:
Rose should have apologized and asked for gambling help when this first came out. A. Bartlett Giamatti, a good and fair minded commissioner very well may have been able to avoid giving Rose a death sentence.

Why did Pete Rose agree to a lifetime ban? Simple question for which I can think of only one plausible answer. If you've got another, I'd love to hear it.

@DIMEMAN said:
Nobody knows that, but Rose.

If only one possible answer exists, then it is the answer. I'm asking you, and others, for ANY alternative explanation than the one I've put forward. Mostly, I am marveling at the lengths to which you and the rest of the Rose brigade are willing to go to avoid answering the question.

MLB: "Mr. Rose, we're banning you from baseball for the rest of your life. There's nothing you can do about it, but we'd still like you to publicly agree that you deserve a lifetime ban."

Rose: "And what if I don't?"

MLB: ?

Rose: "Okey-dokey, I'll make that statement right away."

What is it that you think MLB said to Rose that made him crap his pants in terror? And why are you so sure that whatever it was, it shouldn't keep him out of the HOF?

@DIMEMAN said:
@dallasactuary you are on the verge of badgering the witness, This will be (I think) my last statement...…..I don't think the gambling should keep him out of the HOF considering his accomplishments on the field.

Technically, it's not "badgering" as long as the witness refuses to answer the question, and you (and the others I've asked) are firm in your resolve to avoid answering the question. You keep referring to "gambling" as if that has anything to do with why Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. That he gambled was a well-known fact, and Rose would have said "yes I gambled, but that doesn't warrant a lifetime ban" from the beginning if that's all there was to it. Clearly, there's more to it than that.

You said, and I agree, that "gambling" shouldn't keep him out of the HOF forever. You can stop saying that. If and when you choose to address the question I actually asked, I'd love to hear the answer.