PDA

View Full Version : Pete Rose should be re-instated?



azzurribaggio
01-27-10, 05:21 AM
With all the Steroid admissions the past few years...do you guys consider what Rose did in the same league?
I was reading this article in ESPN and it does seem like a double-standard. I guess the problem with Rose is that he signed something agreeing with the lifetime ban correct? I mean on the field the guy was a stud...4,256 hits is just insane if you think about it. It's like fricken Nolan Ryan's 5,714 strikeouts...and Cy Young's 511 wins....it makes you do a double take as if you had read that wrong. Off the field is another story...I dunno...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/100126&sportCat=mlb

Ram Man
01-27-10, 09:06 AM
Some murders go free so let's let the rapists go free too, huh? The question of gambling on baseball, associating with gamblers, etc. was settled in 1920. Rose chose to violate the rules against gambling knowing the consequences. He accepted the lifetime ban. Case closed.

CasanovaWong
01-27-10, 09:21 AM
I'd rather see Joe Jackson's lifetime ban overturned than Pete Rose's.

Mr. Mxylsplk
01-27-10, 09:55 AM
I don't see the comparison at all. At no point in its history has baseball had rules regarding steroids which call for a lifetime ban. If you want to change the rules regarding gambling on a going-forward basis, that's one thing. If you want to change the rules regarding ped use on a going-forward basis, that's one thing. But the rules were clear when Rose broke them, and he knew the consequences. He shouldn't get brownie points because there were different penalties (or a lack thereof) for other types of rules violations.

ruthianblast
01-27-10, 10:01 AM
With all the Steroid admissions the past few years...do you guys consider what Rose did in the same league?
I was reading this article in ESPN and it does seem like a double-standard. I guess the problem with Rose is that he signed something agreeing with the lifetime ban correct? I mean on the field the guy was a stud...4,256 hits is just insane if you think about it. It's like fricken Nolan Ryan's 5,714 strikeouts...and Cy Young's 511 wins....it makes you do a double take as if you had read that wrong. Off the field is another story...I dunno...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/100126&sportCat=mlb

If he were to create a new contract with the MLB that specifically outlined what he did; acknowledge he was wrong and based on a set of specific activities would be reinstated. Only then would I be ok with it.

He signed a contract for a lifetime ban, so long as he is alive he's out.

effdamets
01-27-10, 10:03 AM
never

DEADSOX
01-27-10, 10:04 AM
comparing murder and rape to steroids and gambling is a bit extreme, no? Let the man in already. Rules and laws are changed and bent all the time in our government, why is it such heresy to do the same in baseball?

effdamets
01-27-10, 10:14 AM
comparing murder and rape to steroids and gambling is a bit extreme, no? Let the man in already. Rules and laws are changed and bent all the time in our government, why is it such heresy to do the same in baseball?
Basically what you are explaining then, is that it's OK to do anything you want because eventually, you'll get back in.
I don't agree with that because in order to maintain integrity, you have to draw the line somewhere...

montrealer
01-27-10, 10:23 AM
There are players in the HOF that have done much much worse.......

DEADSOX
01-27-10, 10:24 AM
No, that's not what I'm saying. You can't automatically assume what you're doing now will be OK later on down the road. I am saying exceptions should be made though in certain cases. Letting Pete Rose in the HoF is not destroying the intergrity of the game, it's recognizing one of the games all-time most celebrated players. I don't buy this imaginary integrity that sports have these days, where people only play for the biggest contracts. Baseball has no integrity anymore b/w the big contracts and the steroid scandal imo. I still love watching it, but there is nothing pure about it, and there likely never was. I'm not saying we shouldn't care about what players do off the field, but to me this is small beans in the grand scheme of things. But that's just my opinion.

^Didn't Ty Cobb go in the stands and beat a handicapped guy???

yankeebot
01-27-10, 10:28 AM
I'd like to see him admitted into the HOF but not re-instated in baseball. I know they don't do this but I can't see any good reason for it. The two things shouldn't be connected and the rules were actually modified to keep him out. Makes no sense to me.

NYYDragoon
01-27-10, 10:35 AM
I don't see the comparison at all. At no point in its history has baseball had rules regarding steroids which call for a lifetime ban. If you want to change the rules regarding gambling on a going-forward basis, that's one thing. If you want to change the rules regarding ped use on a going-forward basis, that's one thing. But the rules were clear when Rose broke them, and he knew the consequences. He shouldn't get brownie points because there were different penalties (or a lack thereof) for other types of rules violations.Well said.

Bub
01-27-10, 11:21 AM
He doesn't deserve to be in it but the fans deserve to see some kind of recognition, so I have a compromise. Let the writers consider him the year following his death. He's an arrogant SOB and if he opens his mouth too much about it in the meantime he won't make it, and even if he does he won't know about it. This will aggravate him even more than he is now.

Ram Man
01-27-10, 11:51 AM
I'd rather see Joe Jackson's lifetime ban overturned than Pete Rose's.

Technically, Jackson's "lifetime" ban expired in 1951.

kan_t
01-27-10, 11:59 AM
It's not lifetime ban. Rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball. That's a permanent ban just like Joe Jackson. That's why Joe Jackson can't appear in the HOF ballet even though he passed away.

nnysiny
01-27-10, 12:01 PM
There are players in the HOF that have done much much worse.......
not exactly a good reference point

PERJLM
01-27-10, 12:18 PM
Technically, Jackson's "lifetime" ban expired in 1951. Can you please explaIn that. I never heard that. Is there any where on the net where I can see that for myself?

JDPNYY
01-27-10, 12:29 PM
Can you please explaIn that. I never heard that. Is there any where on the net where I can see that for myself?

yer gonna kick yerself...





(Joe died in 1951.)

Ram Man
01-27-10, 12:47 PM
It's not lifetime ban. Rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball. That's a permanent ban just like Joe Jackson. That's why Joe Jackson can't appear in the HOF ballet even though he passed away.

This is correct. The term "lifetime ban" is often (incorrectly) used interchangeably with "permanently ineligible." Technically, of course, a lifetime ban ends when the life of the person in question ends.

Rule 21 (the misconduct rule) does proscribe "permanently ineligible" as the punishment for violation.

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rule21.html

CasanovaWong
01-27-10, 01:17 PM
Technically, Jackson's "lifetime" ban expired in 1951.

Hah, true that was pretty silly of me. What I meant to say was I would rather see him taken off the MLB Ineligible List before Rose

kan_t
01-27-10, 01:21 PM
Hah, true that was pretty silly of me. What I meant to say was I would rather see him taken off the MLB Ineligible List before Rose
No disagreement here.

Nome
01-27-10, 01:36 PM
It's not lifetime ban. Rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball. That's a permanent ban just like Joe Jackson. That's why Joe Jackson can't appear in the HOF ballet even though he passed away.

Rose agreed to a lifetime ban in exchange for the then Commissioner, Giamatti to not reveal that Rose bet on baseball games. Giamatti reneged on the deal less than a week later. Why is Rose held to a higher standard than Giamatti.? Maybe God didn't like what Giamatti did also. Giamatti passed away soon after.

Andy

Bobsagat186
01-27-10, 10:45 PM
He broke the rules and shouldn't be let in.

But I don't see why anyone wouldn't want him in.

NelsonMuntz
01-27-10, 11:25 PM
Some murders go free so let's let the rapists go free too, huh? The question of gambling on baseball, associating with gamblers, etc. was settled in 1920. Rose chose to violate the rules against gambling knowing the consequences. He accepted the lifetime ban. Case closed.
^ This. :-padlock-

YankeeSteel
01-27-10, 11:58 PM
Something needs to stick...

- Mounds up, mounds down

- Fields big, fields smaller

- minorities in, minorities out

- steroids out, steroids in (AND STEROID USE GOES BACK FURTHER THAN ACKNOWLEDGED - thanks for proving that Adolf) at a time when athletes smoked 10 packs a day in the dug-out, drank all night, slept with 20 woman a night, ate hot dogs for training meals, but wouldn't take a wonder drug that 'at the time' there was no evidence that steroids were harmful - yeah... your black and white 8mm heroes were jacked too

- spit balls and grease balls

- and the mob and organized crime era never had an impact on pro sports

meanwhile some honest players and teams actually set legitimate records through it all

Brick Tamland
01-28-10, 09:14 AM
Agree with NM and RM.

Punishment for betting on the game was settled with the Black Sox. Betting on the game almost destroyed it once, there have to be dire consequences for those foolish enough to make the same mistake.

PERJLM
01-29-10, 10:37 AM
yer gonna kick yerself...





(Joe died in 1951.)I figured that after I wrote my response. In any case, Joe isn't in yet, ain't he? And as long as Bud and Faye Vincent are alive, Pete ain't going get in because they blame Pete for Bart G's death.

kan_t
01-29-10, 10:41 AM
Rose agreed to a lifetime ban in exchange for the then Commissioner, Giamatti to not reveal that Rose bet on baseball games. Giamatti reneged on the deal less than a week later. Why is Rose held to a higher standard than Giamatti.? Maybe God didn't like what Giamatti did also. Giamatti passed away soon after.

Andy
I don't mind if the commissioner review the decision, but it's shouldn't be only about Rose, but also those "Black Sox" players. That's my bottom line.

Hellsing
01-29-10, 11:14 AM
Yes. And he should be in the HOF.

Sixty one
01-29-10, 11:22 AM
I doubt if Rose will ever get in. However, no one can predict the future and perhaps after he is long gone some future commissioner will look at the Rose case and finally have him re-instated.;)

Zimmer's Helmet
01-29-10, 11:44 AM
I'd like to see him admitted into the HOF but not re-instated in baseball. I know they don't do this but I can't see any good reason for it. The two things shouldn't be connected and the rules were actually modified to keep him out. Makes no sense to me.

Completely agree with you. What he did as a player should be recognized and what he did after his retirement should have no bearing on a brilliant career.

Hitman23
01-29-10, 04:17 PM
No, that's not what I'm saying. You can't automatically assume what you're doing now will be OK later on down the road. I am saying exceptions should be made though in certain cases. Letting Pete Rose in the HoF is not destroying the intergrity of the game, it's recognizing one of the games all-time most celebrated players. I don't buy this imaginary integrity that sports have these days, where people only play for the biggest contracts. Baseball has no integrity anymore b/w the big contracts and the steroid scandal imo. I still love watching it, but there is nothing pure about it, and there likely never was. I'm not saying we shouldn't care about what players do off the field, but to me this is small beans in the grand scheme of things. But that's just my opinion.

^Didn't Ty Cobb go in the stands and beat a handicapped guy???I'm with you 100%. Great post.

There is no reason why things can't be changed. Who gives a crap if he signed anything. A signature is not an immovable object. People sign when they pay for sh*t they can't afford with credit cards then declare bankruptcy. Changing Rose's ban, or at least allowing his induction into the Hall, is merely a matter of getting a stubborn bastard to give in. It CAN be changed, just the right people don't want it to be.

Reg-gie
01-29-10, 10:17 PM
he has more hits than any other hitter in baseball history, yet not in the baseball hall of fame. it's true that rose should be ashamed that he bet on baseball as a manager. but it's not like baseball is a spotleslly clean sport, the allegations of steroid use are pretty widespread, those players found to have used steroids are not banned. so mlb tolerates rule breakers who hit homeruns b/c the fans get excited about homers and therefore mlb can make more money from a game where steroid users hit homers all over the place, as long as no one talks about it. when the reporters and investigators finally brought it into the limelight, mlb acted like they're shocked, meanwhile everyone knew about that stuff going on, and conveniently looked the other way.

i'm just saying that rose is a guy who got more hits in the majors than anybody else in history, and yet isn't in the hall of fame. yet if you view steroid users as cheaters, mlb tolerated them as long as politically possible. sounds like hipocrisy to me. true rose did something wrong in a big way but his achievement on the field involved no cheating at all, he didn't take steroids, those hits were real and legitimate. he should be in the hall of fame in my opinion, for his on the field achievement of the most career hits in mlb history. they didn't call him charley hustle for nothing, lol.

hey, i guess whether he's in the hall of fame or not, he still has more hits than anybody else. so he could just tell mlb to go f*ck themselves, and say i don;t give a flying f*ck if you put me in the hall of fame or not. you guys still don't have anybody who can come close to my record (except for ty cobb) so screw off, i don't even give you guys permission to put me in your whatever you call it hall of whatever, haha that would be awesome, tell the bastards to f*ck themselves, how many hits did they get? that's what pete should do,

I'm A Wenner!
01-29-10, 10:22 PM
I'm not reading anything you say until you learn to capitalize.

kan_t
01-30-10, 06:09 AM
It's Rose who chose to ban himself. It's not the HOF or MLB fault that he chose to agree to permanent ineligibility from baseball instead of letting MLB reveal his case of betting.

penguin4
02-01-10, 12:44 AM
Apples and oranges. Rose knew betting on baseball was wrong and would result in dire consequences if it came out, yet he did it anyway; PED users may have been aware of moral questionability, but since baseball chose to look the other way and not institute any hard and fast rules regarding it, you can't 100% point the finger at them, particularly when trainers were recommending they take them. And just because it might be eventually excusable for guys to break the rules in one way doesn't mean it should be excusable in every other way. (I really like that murder/rape analogy.)

Steroids should and will continue to be reprimanded, but it'll be harder to discount an entire era of users (and what exactly "users" implies) in the broader scheme of things. Gambling is a lot more clear-cut. You either bet on baseball or you didn't; there's really not much gray area.

There's another difference, however, and that does have to do with "integrity." And yes, it does exist, in the sense that the men who wear the same uniform as you are all linked by a common goal -- winning. Personal accomplishments and fat contracts are nice, but you don't hear guys who fell short say, "I wish I'd gotten 3,000 hits," so much as, "I wish I'd gotten a World Series ring." Guarantee that years from now even Bonds will be saying that. That's the goal, and guys on steroids, even if they're cheating to get there, are doing it in the interests of making themselves better -- which ultimately makes their team better. (At least that's what it seems the whole steroids debate focuses on -- if it hurt players' performances more than or as much as it helped them, no one would be doing it, and certainly no one would be talking about it.) Gambling, on the other hand, even if it's only betting on your team to win (as Rose claimed to have done), can have the opposite effect. It can influence your managerial moves if you're trying to cover a certain point spread; it can influence your performance as a player if you're striving for a particular result, since more than your job is on the line here. (As in you'll strike out swinging for the fences when a single will suffice because your team is the three-run favorites.) You end up working only for your own selfish motives, and it negatively ends up impacting performance.

Does Rose belong in the Hall? Statistically, of course. But I think it'd be a mistake to reinstate him while he's alive to give him the satisfaction of seeing himself inducted into Cooperstown. The punishment is that he isn't eligible to be inducted at all; not that he just had to wait an extra 20 years to do it. I think Bart Giamatti would be turning over in his grave if he knew other officials in his place were weaker than he was to casually brush aside the decision that likely killed him.

Nome
02-01-10, 06:05 PM
Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. He should be banned from further participation in baseball.

What he did between the lines warrents HOF inclusion.

Giamatti should be censurred and banned from baseball for his lying and actions in the Rose situation. He was the evil one, not Rose.

Andy

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-01-10, 06:16 PM
This is getting pretty good.

kan_t
02-01-10, 07:05 PM
Giamatti should be censurred and banned from baseball for his lying and actions in the Rose situation. He was the evil one, not Rose.
So did Rose bet?

HelloNewman
02-01-10, 07:26 PM
How do you ban a dead guy?

Big_E
02-01-10, 10:31 PM
Yes to HOF; no to re-instatement

If Rose had been banned from baseball after he was inducted, he would not have been kicked out of the HOF....so yes to HOF, but no to baseball.

sweet_lou_14
02-02-10, 04:17 PM
Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. He should be banned from further participation in baseball.

What he did between the lines warrents HOF inclusion.

I was going to post something basically like this. He should have no part in the game going forward, but he should be in the HOF. And in the HOF, his plaque and all other memorabilia should be accompanied by a full and frank discussion of the crimes that got him banned. Hell, I would even put his betting slips in the display case.


Giamatti should be censurred and banned from baseball for his lying and actions in the Rose situation. He was the evil one, not Rose.

And ... now you've completely lost me.

penguin4
02-02-10, 06:19 PM
Giamatti should be censurred and banned from baseball for his lying and actions in the Rose situation. He was the evil one, not Rose.
And ... now you've completely lost me.Yeah. I'm not familiar with that part of the story, either, Andy.:confused:

Nome
02-04-10, 08:08 AM
Yeah. I'm not familiar with that part of the story, either, Andy.:confused:

Part of the agreement that Rose signed with Baseball is that he would accept banishment from baseball in return for baseball's not bringing up the issue of Rose's possible betting on baseball. That was with the proviso that Rose could apply for reinstatement to baseball in a few years (say five) and receive strong consideration. At the time Rose never admitted to betting on baseball (as we now know he did admit it subsequently) but he accepted the banishment thinking it would be temporary and that baseball wouldn't bring up the betting issue.

Giamatti, less than one week later, came out and said that Rose admitted betting on baseball, which at the time wasn't true and totally went against their agreement.
For whatever good Giamatti did in his lifetime, in this instance he was wrong and needed to be censured.

Andy

Nome
02-04-10, 08:10 AM
How do you ban a dead guy?

Good question. I have no answer for that. Maybe ban him from the games played in the afterlife.

Andy

yankeebot
02-04-10, 08:31 AM
Part of the agreement that Rose signed with Baseball is that he would accept banishment from baseball in return for baseball's not bringing up the issue of Rose's possible betting on baseball. That was with the proviso that Rose could apply for reinstatement to baseball in a few years (say five) and receive strong consideration. At the time Rose never admitted to betting on baseball (as we now know he did admit it subsequently) but he accepted the banishment thinking it would be temporary and that baseball wouldn't bring up the betting issue.

Giamatti, less than one week later, came out and said that Rose admitted betting on baseball, which at the time wasn't true and totally went against their agreement.
For whatever good Giamatti did in his lifetime, in this instance he was wrong and needed to be censured.

Andy I don't think so. I know Rose claimed he was double crossed but there is nothing in the agreement that prevented Giamatti from expressing a personal opinion which is all he did. And he emphasized that he was speaking only for himself and not baseball when he expressed that opinion. If Rose believed there was some sort of "gentleman's agreement" regarding public comments or reinstatement outside of what was written, well, a little foolish on his part. This is the agreement. http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/agreement.html



<tt><tt>THEREFORE, the Commissioner, recognizing the benefits to
Baseball from a resolution of this matter, orders and directs
that Peter Edward Rose be subject to the following disciplinary
sanctions, and Peter Edward Rose, recognizing the sole and exclusive
authority of the Commissioner and that it is in his interest to
resolve this matter without further proceedings, agrees to accept
the following disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Commissioner.

a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible
in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible
List.

b. Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of
the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement.
Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise
contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the
Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any
application for reinstatement.

c. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an
admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation
that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.

Neither the Commissioner nor Peter Edward Rose shall be
prevented by this agreement from making any public statement
relating to this matter so long as no such public statement
contradicts the terms of this agreement and resolution.

This document contains the entire agreement of the
parties and represents the entire resolution of the matter of
Peter Edward Rose before the Commissioner.
</tt></tt>

Nome
02-04-10, 08:34 AM
I don't think so. I know Rose claimed he was double crossed but there is nothing in the agreement that prevented Giamatti from expressing a personal opinion which is all he did. And he emphasized that he was speaking only for himself and not baseball when he expressed that opinion. If Rose believed there was some sort of "gentleman's agreement" regarding public comments or reinstatement outside of what was written, well, a little foolish on his part. This is the agreement. http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/agreement.html

I don't care how you sugar coat it. If Giamatti made the agreement as the Commissioner of Baseball it was immoral and illegal of him to talk about it as a personal opinion. That's the same thing as insider trading. If he had lived he should have been brought to trial and jailed. The agreement should have been made null and void.

Andy

yankeebot
02-04-10, 09:00 AM
You can have immoral if you'd like. I'm not big on making moral judgments especially on people that I don't know. But I'm holding fast to not illegal. In fact, Rose knew exactly what Giamatti would say if asked since it was specifically discussed. Rose's "shock" at his comments was a farce.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/27/sports/baseball-rose-asks-baseball-to-let-him-back.html?pagewanted=1


Vincent, who was deputy commissioner at the time and who negotiated the agreement with Rose's lawyers, said Rose's representatives tried to get Giamatti to agree not to say anything. But Vincent said that Giamatti had told him: '' 'Don't ever make an agreement that will keep me from talking. That's the thing I do best.'

''There was a strong negotiation on that point,'' Vincent said. ''They tried to get an agreement that neither side would comment after the agreement was signed. We said no. I told them he won't raise it, but if someone asks him in the press conference he will say he thinks Pete bet on baseball, though he was making no formal finding on that.''

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-04-10, 10:10 AM
I don't care how you sugar coat it. If Giamatti made the agreement as the Commissioner of Baseball it was immoral and illegal of him to talk about it as a personal opinion.
Even though the agreement expressly provided that he could talk about it as a personal opinion? Good stuff.

Hitman23
02-04-10, 12:31 PM
Even though the agreement expressly provided that he could talk about it as a personal opinion? Good stuff.I could be wrong here but the way I read the agreement:


<tt><tt>Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an
admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation
that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.

and


</tt></tt><tt><tt>Neither the Commissioner nor Peter Edward Rose shall be
prevented by this agreement from making any public statement
relating to this matter so long as no such public statement
contradicts the terms of this agreement and resolution.

If he stated publicly that Rose admitted betting, to me this violates the agreement. Again, I could be wrong but this is how I see it.
</tt></tt>

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-04-10, 12:39 PM
If he stated publicly that Rose admitted betting, to me this violates the agreement. Again, I could be wrong but this is how I see it.
</TT></TT>
I agree with how you see it. Since Giamatti never publicly stated that, he didn't do anything in violation of the agreement.

Hitman23
02-04-10, 12:41 PM
I agree with how you see it. Since Giamatti never publicly stated that, he didn't do anything in violation of the agreement.So someone misquoted earlier in the thread because I saw someone post he made a statement like that.

So what are we arguing then? What did he exactly is he being accused of?

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-04-10, 03:21 PM
So someone misquoted earlier in the thread because I saw someone post he made a statement like that.
Yes.


So what are we arguing then? What did he exactly is he being accused of?
I'm not arguing with you, I agree with your interpretation. And under that interpretation, he did not do anything which violated the agreement.

Hitman23
02-04-10, 03:30 PM
Oh I meant the discussion in the thread, not that you and I were arguing. :cool: