Pete Rose

[RayH]

Did he do something worse than Orlando Cepeda, who was caught trafficing in drugs?

[bailey]

oh yes, he did.
betting on the sports is a cardnial sin, the worst of them all.
and is the unforgiveable one.

[TwoRails]

Pete who??....... / end sarcasm

[SonicVanguard]

I agree with bailey. If Shoeless Joe Jackson is held accountable to his "wagering" then Rose should as well. At least Shoeless Joe gave back the money and in no way showed he held back on the field during that series. Who knows if Rose changed the outcome of games based on his bets. According to his bookie (interviewed on ESPN earlier today), Rose not only bet on his own games, but bet on games based on what other coaches told him. No way he should be allowed back into baseball.

Dave.

[M. A. Dockter]

Sonic hit the nail on the head. That, and he lied about doing it for so long...all in the name of trying to protect his own self.

[RayH]

So it's OK for the Baseball Hall of Fame to induct convicted drug dealers?

[bigpuma]

Originally posted by RayH
So it's OK for the Baseball Hall of Fame to induct convicted drug dealers?

yes.

There is a difference between doing "bad" things away from the game and doing things that directly affect the integrity of the game. What Rose did called into question the validity of the entire game of baseball. What Cepeda did was illegal and he faced the consequences in the judicial system. What Rose did directly affected Baseball.

[PMich]

I've only had this conversation about ten times in the last two days and here is my $.02. What Rose did is/was wrong. A lifetime ban was excessive at the time and still is. I don't get too much into the touchy-feely psychobabble but I do believe Rose had a gambling addiction. Anyone who has had a gambling addiction will tell you that you will use anything to gain a perceived advantage. He may have wagered on baseball and tried to affect the outcome of the games, but how is this different than any player who plays under the influence of any substance during the game. We've certainly placed multiple players in the hall of fame who have been under the influence at some time while playing a game who may of had legitimate addictions as well. Besides, when a load of players start testing positive for steroids (we've already had one), are we going to ban them? Steroid use certainly affects the "integrity of the game".

The fact that Rose denied gambling for so many years is obviously because he was an addict and denial goes hand in hand with being an addict. I think he is trying to make amends for what he has done wrong.

That being said, I feel for the man but I am not 100% certain that he belongs in Cooperstown. Maybe someone will build a black sheep athletes hall of fame and Pete and Joe can be inducted in the inaugural class.

I still have a feeling in my gut that the Selig camp has a lot to do with this. With the blunders that Selig has made in the last couple of years, he may being try to make it up with to baseball fans.

[Panama Red]

This was the topic of a local talk radio show today and one caller offered a suggestion that I find agreeable. No doubt his records and performance as a player have earned him a place in Cooperstown. However, his performance as a manager disqualified him for life - HIS life. After he dies, put him in the Hall. That way he can't enjoy the recognition during his lifetime, but others can remember him for the great player he was.

[PMich]

I don't know if the "lifetime" ban refers to his life or the life of the sport. I for one wouldn't like to see it come down to merely a matter of semantics. I may have to go dig up the particulars on that.

[Panama Red]

I'm not concerned about the definition of "lifetime". It's more the idea that Pete doesn't get inducted while he can enjoy it. If he's chosen after his death he'll obviously never know it and will have to continue living with the fact that he is disqualified from entry.

[SonicVanguard]

His records and accomplishments are in the Hall. But "he" as in Pete Rose the person, is not and should not be in the Hall - ever.

Dave.

[doctorgonzo]

Remind me why this is important? :p

[Panama Red]

Cuz those of us that grew up with baseball heros or played the game still find it of interest. Computers are great, but there are other things of interest.

[doctorgonzo]

I like baseball too, but when it comes down to it, this is just an internal matter in a private sports organization. The only difference between this and the Great Controversy regarding the reinstatement of a player in the Oconomowoc Rugby Club is the news attention.

I just think it is odd that this purely internal matter is getting so much news. Are the problems of the world so sufficiently solved that this can be one of the top national news stories?

[PMich]

In a word, Yes. In more words, MLB, as with many private organizations, is a major contributor to helping solve the world's problems. Thus, internal happenings in this private organization do have a trickle down effect on the bigger picture. That alone makes this story worthy of national attention. Remember, sport has been part of civilization since its inception, and has played an integral role in shaping our world.

If you want to doubt MLB's participation in "world problems" you may want to check out this article.
MLB in the community (http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20031126&content_id=607900&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp)

[homer15]

gonzo, anything is trivial when you get right down to it. this subject just happens to be important to a lot of people, because what this man did to a game that so many cherrish was hurtful and wrong.

[LawyerRon]

Pete Rose voluntarily accepted the lifetime ban. He knew what he did and he lied about it for many years. He's not fit for the Hall of Fame.

And to answer the poster's original question, what Rose did, in terms of baseball, is much more serious than Cepeda's crime. Rose's offense challenges the very integrity of baseball, ie, game-fixing, etc. He claims he never bet "against" his own team. Really? How do we know that? If he knew a scheduled pitcher on his team was hurting, what would stop him from making a few bucks? My own hunch is that Pete, when he knew his team was gonna lose, bet against his own team.

Pete is still frequently spotted at the horse race tracks and gambling casinos so it looks like nothing's changed. When the Hall of Fame induction ceremonies are being conducted, he's usually right down the street selling his autograph for $200 a pop.

[bigpuma]

Well said Ron

Doctorgonzo, This is all part of the fun and entertaining aspects of sports. Debating who is the NCAA national champ or wheather or not Shoeless Joe or Pete Rose should be in the Hall. None of sports is all that important in the grand scheme of things but it is fun to talk about it.

[Kov-Ice]

The ban WAS excessive, tho. Doesn't it sound like Fay Vincent was personally wronged in some way by Pete? I would reserve the terms "pathetic individual" and "he disgusts me" for far more distasteful infractions. Steve Howe was suspended NINE times for cocaine use, but allowed to return to the game each time. How 'bout the life and times of Darryl Strawberry? Yet, he is allowed to be a Role Model for minor league players in the Yankees system. Is every HoF inductee a saint? I think not.

Pete was without question my favorite ball player growing up. No doubt I have lost much, if not all, respect for him as an individual. He bet on baseball, and he should have been punished. But his contributions to the Game as a Player stand among the greatest of all time. That is what the HoF should recognize.

Thanks for listening :)

[Kov-Ice]

After writing my above rant last night, I woke up to THIS (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/Sports/Cardinals/7084AA3784DAAC7586256E16004778A0?OpenDocument&Headline=Rose+has+thorns,+but+he+should+be+in+Hall+) article in the Post-Dispatch. Interesting stuff...

[mairving]

It is really most of his own doing. If he would have come clean years ago, he probably would have been eligible but now he has burned so many bridges that he probably won't get in. Still what does it really matter. He was one of the best players of all time regardless if he is in the Hall or not.

[LawyerRon]

Kov-Ice,
That argument (and its underlying premise) is really nothing new; it’s been around since Pete got himself banned. Yes, there are drunks, drug addicts, racists, scoundrels, etc. aplenty in the Hall of Fame. But ALL major league players are schooled early in this one truism: “THE ONE SURE THING THAT WILL GET YOU BANNED FOR LIFE IN BASEBALL IS BETTING ON BASEBALL WHILE ACTIVE.” All players know this just like they know what day payday is. Pete knew this. Pete chose to break that sacred rule. To make matters worse, Pete even took it one step further; he bet on games in which he had a potential say in the outcome. Baseball will not and cannot tolerate this.

[kilgoretrout]

I listened to a sports talk show on the radio yesterday where they reaired an interview they had with Pete Rose four years ago. During the interview he convcingly stated that he never bet on baseball. The thing that was impressive about Rose's performance is what a great liar he is. I mean the guy was totally convincing.

After hearing that and the recent announcements, I'll never believe anything this guy says again.

[bigandy]

Originally posted by kilgoretrout
I listened to a sports talk show on the radio yesterday where they reaired an interview they had with Pete Rose four years ago. During the interview he convcingly stated that he never bet on baseball. The thing that was impressive about Rose's performance is what a great liar he is. I mean the guy was totally convincing.

After hearing that and the recent announcements, I'll never believe anything this guy says again.

You get pretty good at it when you've been lying about something for 14 years.

[Kov-Ice]

Here is a great article by the best baseball writer in the best baseball town in America: Read Me (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/Rick+Hummel/C286B197DE02322586256E190069E3B7?OpenDocument&Headline=Rose+hasn)

It's a bit slanted toward the naysayers, but Pete doesn't help his case much, does he? Still, it's a good read if interested.