Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Report: Rose admits he bet on baseball
TSM Forums > Pop Culture > Sports
Pages: 1, 2
EVIL~! alkeiper
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oD...ov=ap&type=lgns

QUOTE
Report: Rose admits in book to betting on baseball


January 3, 2004
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Pete Rose admits in his upcoming autobiography that he gambled on baseball, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Saturday.

The newspaper cited an unidentified source who was briefed on the book.

The New York Times, citing a source in major league baseball, reported Wednesday that Rose admitted to betting on baseball at a meeting with commissioner Bud Selig.

Rodale Inc., which is publishing ``My Prison Without Bars,'' said the book will go on sale Thursday. Cathy Gruhn, publicist for the Emmaus publishing company, declined to comment to the Inquirer on the book's contents.

Selig did not comment Friday to the Inquirer. However, the newspaper reported Saturday that sources close to Selig said he has not made a decision about Rose's application for reinstatement, and any missteps in the book could cost Rose.

Rose's ban from baseball prevents him from being eligible for the Hall of Fame. Some observers believe he would have to confess to gambling on baseball as a condition for possible reinstatement.

Following a six-month investigation, Rose was banned from the sport for life in August 1989 by then-commissioner Bart Giamatti. Despite agreeing to the ban, the game's career hits leader has steadfastly denied betting on baseball while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds.

Rose applied for reinstatement in 1997 and met with Selig in November 2002 to press his case. The Times said Rose acknowledged betting on baseball at that meeting.

Selig's top deputy, chief operating officer Bob DuPuy, has talked several times with Rose's representatives.

As part of an agreement between Giamatti and Rose, baseball never formally concluded that Rose was guilty of gambling on the sport. However, Giamatti stated that he personally believed Rose had done so.


So now everyone expects that Rose will be let back in. I don't get it. If Rose really did bet on baseball, then the last thing that should happen is his reinstatement. Oh well. If this process takes its expected course, Rose would become eligible for the Hall. He would get one shot with the BBWAA, and if he doesn't make it then, he would need to get in through the veterans' committee, which consists of current Hall members.

With over 4,000+ hits, Rose is a shoe-in for Hall inclusion on stats alone. The issue is the gambling, which WILL figure into his HOF chances. The writers will certainly take that into account. Rose would need 75% to forget all about the gambling. I'm not sure that'll happen. If and when it goes to the Vets, I'm happy letting them decide. If 75% of former players decide Rose is worthy, then I really can't argue with it.
Vern Gagne
If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.
CanadianChris
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 3 2004, 07:58 PM)
If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.

And the Veterans Committee isn't nearly as likely to vote him in as the writers would be.
EVIL~! alkeiper
I'm not sure the Veterans' Committee is likely to vote anyone in. If they don't, the HOF is sure to modify the process in a few years.
Salacious Crumb
I don't think he will be.

Sellig seems the type that would try to entice him with the possiblity of being let in and then once he got what he wanted no do it.
Anglesault
Eh, I never had a problem with what he did anyway.
EVIL~! alkeiper
QUOTE(Mad Dog @ Jan 4 2004, 04:24 AM)
I don't think he will be.

Sellig seems the type that would try to entice him with the possiblity of being let in and then once he got what he wanted no do it.

That could be true. However, Selig never seemed the type capable of outsmarting someone.
Olympic Slam
This isn't really big news. Everybody knows he bet on baseball, the real question is whether or not he bet against the Reds while managing them. His book is going to sell big though
Vern Gagne
QUOTE(CanadianChris @ Jan 3 2004, 10:10 PM)
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 3 2004, 07:58 PM)
If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.

And the Veterans Committee isn't nearly as likely to vote him in as the writers would be.

Several HOFers like Mike Schmidt, and I believe Henry Aaron have spoken out in favor of Rose. I think he makes it in the Veterans Committee.
Anglesault
QUOTE(Olympic Slam @ Jan 4 2004, 02:00 AM)
This isn't really big news. Everybody knows he bet on baseball, the real question is whether or not he bet against the Reds while managing them. His book is going to sell big though

Now, if he did THAT I'd have problems.
Vern Gagne
This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.
Bored
I'm 100% for him in the Hall of Fame as a player and let the guy show up for Reds games and events. I just hope Selig isn't stupid enough to allow him to work in MLB again as that he should never be allowed to do.
Anglesault
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 4 2004, 03:27 AM)
This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.
Vern Gagne
AS. The comment was directed at Olympic Slam. He's the one that said this isn't anything new.

IMO...Keep Rose out of Baseball, and the HOF because of that haircut he had.
EVIL~! alkeiper
QUOTE(Anglesault @ Jan 4 2004, 08:35 AM)
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 4 2004, 03:27 AM)
This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.

Associating with gamblers is the problem, and a connection MLB tries hard to avoid. And here's a possible problem. A major league manager gets in deep debt with a bookie. What can he do to repay that debt? Maybe he's coerced into effecting a game or two. Then you have a problem. Its the association of gamblers and players/managers that's the problem.
CanadianChris
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 4 2004, 03:09 AM)
QUOTE(CanadianChris @ Jan 3 2004, 10:10 PM)
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 3 2004, 07:58 PM)
If he is reinstated he'd be eligible in 2005. If the writers don't vote him in, that would mean he'd have to wait until 2007, since the Veterans only vote every other year.

And the Veterans Committee isn't nearly as likely to vote him in as the writers would be.

Several HOFers like Mike Schmidt, and I believe Henry Aaron have spoken out in favor of Rose. I think he makes it in the Veterans Committee.

There's not nearly enough Rose supporters on the committee for him to make it. Most people on the committee are guys who played in the 50s and 60s, and they're pretty much to a man disgusted with Rose. Very unlikely that the committee votes him in.
CanadianChris
QUOTE(Anglesault @ Jan 4 2004, 03:35 AM)
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 4 2004, 03:27 AM)
This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.

What kind of message does it send to bookies if he bet on last night's game, but he's not betting on tonight's game? Obviously he thinks they're going to lose. You can not under any circumstances bet on games involving your own team, in either direction, if you exert as much control over the outcome as the manager.
2GOLD
Just let him back in already. I know longer care.

If baseball let drug dealers, racists, wife beaters and murderers stay then a gambler might as well remain as well.

Can't take the moral high ground now.
The Czech Republic
Selig should reinstate Rose, then they induct him into the HOF with the ceremony at Cooperstown and everything but then Kane comes and Tombstones Pete, for the clever Selig had orchestrated a swerve all aong.
Anglesault
QUOTE(alkeiper @ Jan 4 2004, 08:46 AM)
QUOTE(Anglesault @ Jan 4 2004, 08:35 AM)
QUOTE(Vern Gagne @ Jan 4 2004, 03:27 AM)
This is Rose's first admission of betting on baseball. Everyone knew he did, but he never admitted to it until know.

I know that.

Now, my lax moral code is kind of well known, but I don't have a problem with a manager betting for his team.

I don't exactly see how that would effect his managerial performance, wherin he's supposed to do all that he can to win anyway.

Obviously, betting against the team is a whole different ball game.

Associating with gamblers is the problem, and a connection MLB tries hard to avoid. And here's a possible problem. A major league manager gets in deep debt with a bookie. What can he do to repay that debt? Maybe he's coerced into effecting a game or two. Then you have a problem. Its the association of gamblers and players/managers that's the problem.

Makes sense.
Dr. Tom
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I can't think of anything that would make me stop saying it:

FUCK Pete Rose.

He's a liar, a swindler, a shameless self-promoter, and a man who remorselessly did as much damage as he could to baseball while concerning himself only with Pete Rose. If he ever gets into the Hall of Fame, however it happens, I really hope he's died first. The thought of him tainting Cooperstown is sickening to me. My sincere hope is that he never gets reinstated for what he did, and I don't feel he ever should.
1234-5678
I think he just be let in just based on his stats alone. It's not like the rest of the guys in the Hall are saints or anything. Ty Cobb? Didn't he kill someone? Beat his wife? Babe Ruth? A big time boozer?

Give Pete a break, everyone gambles here and there, whether it be going to AC or the office football pool.
CanadianChris
QUOTE(JAxlMorrison @ Jan 4 2004, 04:51 PM)
I think he just be let in just based on his stats alone. It's not like the rest of the guys in the Hall are saints or anything. Ty Cobb? Didn't he kill someone? Beat his wife? Babe Ruth? A big time boozer?

Give Pete a break, everyone gambles here and there, whether it be going to AC or the office football pool.

Wow, talk about comparing apples to chainsaws.

There's a great quote in someone's sig on here that equates people who are trying to get Shoeless Joe Jackson into the Hall of Fame to women who hang around courthouses fantasizing about getting with accused murderers.

I consider Pete Rose supporters to be the same. He did the crime -- the ONLY crime that gets you banned for life from baseball -- and he should have to do the time. The HoF isn't about needing to be a saint to get enshrined, but it is about respecting the integrity of the game. Rose completely disrespected the game, and doesn't ever deserve to go into Cooperstown.
1234-5678
Alright you've changed my point of view. Although Shoeless Joe was probably worse then Pete Rose. As far as we know now, Pete never lost any games on purpose.
EVIL~! alkeiper
QUOTE
I think he just be let in just based on his stats alone. It's not like the rest of the guys in the Hall are saints or anything. Ty Cobb? Didn't he kill someone? Beat his wife? Babe Ruth? A big time boozer?


QUOTE
I consider Pete Rose supporters to be the same. He did the crime -- the ONLY crime that gets you banned for life from baseball -- and he should have to do the time. The HoF isn't about needing to be a saint to get enshrined, but it is about respecting the integrity of the game. Rose completely disrespected the game, and doesn't ever deserve to go into Cooperstown.


Gambling isn't the only crime. Basically, any outside attempt to fix the result of a game will get you banned as well. As for the first post, there aren't any rules against what Cobb and Ruth did (and baseball was full of those characters in their time). There ARE rules against gambling however. That's the issue with Rose.
MikeSC
QUOTE(DrTom @ Jan 4 2004, 08:38 PM)
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I can't think of anything that would make me stop saying it:

FUCK Pete Rose.

He's a liar, a swindler, a shameless self-promoter, and a man who remorselessly did as much damage as he could to baseball while concerning himself only with Pete Rose. If he ever gets into the Hall of Fame, however it happens, I really hope he's died first. The thought of him tainting Cooperstown is sickening to me. My sincere hope is that he never gets reinstated for what he did, and I don't feel he ever should.

Um, Tom, is there anything Pete could do to hurt baseball that the players union and owners haven't done more effectively yet?
-=Mike
EVIL~! alkeiper
I'm not Tom, but I'll answer yes. The most important thing to any sporting event is its legitimacy. To compromise the integrity that a sporting event is a fair contest does more damage than any front office shenanigans ever could.
Dr. Tom
QUOTE(alkeiper @ Jan 5 2004, 02:33 AM)
I'm not Tom, but I'll answer yes. The most important thing to any sporting event is its legitimacy. To compromise the integrity that a sporting event is a fair contest does more damage than any front office shenanigans ever could.

Yup, there you go, Mike. The owners and players, with their bickering, have given the game something of a PR black eye. Rose and his gambling, though, brings the legitimacy of the sport into question. Even with millionaires and billionaires fighting over money, no one could say baseball was not a fair and legit athletic contest. When the manager of one team has money riding on the outcome, though, that's no longer certain.

Look at boxing for an example of a sport whose reputation has been damaged beyond repair by fixes, dives taken, etc. Baseball doesn't need that, and certainly can't afford it.
snuffbox
QUOTE(alkeiper @ Jan 5 2004, 07:33 AM)
I'm not Tom, but I'll answer yes.  The most important thing to any sporting event is its legitimacy.  To compromise the integrity that a sporting event is a fair contest does more damage than any front office shenanigans ever could.

should Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa also be banned for life. both are certain hall of famers, but both apparently used performance enhancers and McGwire of course admitted to/quit doing that at the end of his career; and Sosa was caught using a corked bat. these clearly call into question the legitamacy of the game.

and, if Rose only bet on his team winning...how is that really 'bad', hes betting on him team winning. if he admitted betting against the reds, thatd be alot different.
kkktookmybabyaway
In with Pete, out with Racist Dusty...
CanadianChris
QUOTE(snuffbox @ Jan 5 2004, 06:13 PM)
and, if Rose only bet on his team winning...how is that really 'bad', hes betting on him team winning. if he admitted betting against the reds, thatd be alot different.

From me, earlier in this thread:

QUOTE
What kind of message does it send to bookies if he bet on last night's game, but he's not betting on tonight's game? Obviously he thinks they're going to lose. You can not under any circumstances bet on games involving your own team, in either direction, if you exert as much control over the outcome as the manager.


And from Jayson Stark of ESPN.com:

QUOTE
He speaks of how he never bet against his own team, and how he never placed a bet from the clubhouse, and how he never used "inside" information, and how he would never, ever fix a game -- no matter how much money he could have made.

But we're still waiting for some recognition that he now understands that a manager who gambles -- even on his own team to win -- is just as dangerous to his sport as a manager who bets on his team to lose.

Remember, if a manager has a couple of thousand bucks riding on any given game, his perspective on everything changes.

Is he really caring about what's best for his team, over the long haul, that night? Does it matter that if he's already used his closer three nights in a row and probably ought to give him a break? Can he really afford to give his cleanup man the night off the day after he's tweaked a hamstring?

Heck, no. All he sees are the dollar signs at stake in that game. Which raises a million questions about everything that goes on.
EVIL~! alkeiper
QUOTE(snuffbox @ Jan 5 2004, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE(alkeiper @ Jan 5 2004, 07:33 AM)
I'm not Tom, but I'll answer yes.  The most important thing to any sporting event is its legitimacy.  To compromise the integrity that a sporting event is a fair contest does more damage than any front office shenanigans ever could.

should Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa also be banned for life. both are certain hall of famers, but both apparently used performance enhancers and McGwire of course admitted to/quit doing that at the end of his career; and Sosa was caught using a corked bat. these clearly call into question the legitamacy of the game.

and, if Rose only bet on his team winning...how is that really 'bad', hes betting on him team winning. if he admitted betting against the reds, thatd be alot different.

To answer the first part, no. My comment serves to answer why gambling is bad, not who should be banned. Of course baseball should work to ensure that illegal performance enhancers are not used, but you can't apply those rules retroactively. If you do, keep in mind that Babe Ruth used a corked bat as well.

As for the second part, Jayson Stark answered that statement quite well. Simply, those directly involved in the outcome of a sporting event should not wager on the outcomes of those events. It is a conflict of interest.
OctoberBlood
Yeah, he admits it in his new book.

It was a mistake (gambling and hiding the truth) and he finally built up the courage to tell it all. He needs to be in the Hall Of Fame, as he should've many years ago. One of the greatest players of all time shouldn't and won't be robbed of his right any longer. Hell, Bud Selig is a more disgrace to baseball than someone (even one of the greatest) betting on baseball. Selig is the one who needs to be banned from this game.
Gert T
I agree with him being in on the stats, and then pretty much everything Dr. Tom said in his first post.

I say announce what year he will be in, put it on the hats, programs, but don't let Pete there or acknowledge it.

It's weird living near Cincy, we always knew Rose was a scumbag off the field, but a hell of a player, I am just very impressed that he had the "courage" to speak out just before his new book came out.

And I don't love Bud Selig, but hate the puppeteers and not the puppet.
Dr. Tom
QUOTE(OctoberBlood @ Jan 5 2004, 10:29 PM)
It was a mistake (gambling and hiding the truth) and he finally built up the courage to tell it all.

Courage?

COURAGE?

There's no courage in Pete Rose's admissions. Anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together has known for 15 years that Rose bet on baseball and his own team, and consistently lied about it. He spents YEARS building up sympathy from the public, always playing the poor-persecuted-old-me card, despite the fact that his situation was his own fault. Now, when he has a lucrative book deal in place and the book, with its 500,000-copy first printing, is about to be released, he finally admits to doing what we knew he did all along. And you call it courage? Rose wants to earn his fucking advance and get his ugly mug on as many TV shows and magazines as possible. This is all about Pete Rose marketing and looking out for Pete Rose, like he always has since he got bounced from the game. Courage indeed.

Your standards for bravery are appallingly low.
Kaertos
When I was a kid, it was the very end of the Big Red Machine. These guys were my heroes. Bench, Rose, Concepcion, Griffey, Geronimo, Perez... all of the. But Rose and Bench shone brighter than the others to me.

When Rose came back to manage the Reds, I was thrilled. I remember sitting in a Ponderosa listening to his first game back on a transistor radio.

When I heard the allegations, I was stunned and in denial for a long time. As I got older and bothered to actually read the Dowd report, I realized that he did, in fact, bet on baseball. Honestly, I was crushed. But I still wanted him in the HoF.

Now? Screw him. He lied to me. For 15 years, he lied to me. Nobody in the past two decades has done more to undermine the game of baseball than Rose. His selfish me-first attitude and grating public persona have turned me from one of the mindless Rose worshipping sheep into an actual Rose hater.

Pete Rose was a great baseball player. I will not deny that. But he does not belong in the Hall of Fame. He broke the one rule of baseball that is hung on the wall in every single clubhouse since the Black Sox scandal. Do not bet on baseball.

To hell with him. I am sick of hearing about him.
OctoberBlood
QUOTE(DrTom @ Jan 6 2004, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE(OctoberBlood @ Jan 5 2004, 10:29 PM)
It was a mistake (gambling and hiding the truth) and he finally built up the courage to tell it all.

Courage?

COURAGE?

There's no courage in Pete Rose's admissions. Anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together has known for 15 years that Rose bet on baseball and his own team, and consistently lied about it. He spents YEARS building up sympathy from the public, always playing the poor-persecuted-old-me card, despite the fact that his situation was his own fault. Now, when he has a lucrative book deal in place and the book, with its 500,000-copy first printing, is about to be released, he finally admits to doing what we knew he did all along. And you call it courage? Rose wants to earn his fucking advance and get his ugly mug on as many TV shows and magazines as possible. This is all about Pete Rose marketing and looking out for Pete Rose, like he always has since he got bounced from the game. Courage indeed.

Your standards for bravery are appallingly low.

Sheesh, calm the hell down. boxing_smiley.gif

I hate this stunt and I hate how he stalled for so long and how he lied for so long as much as anyone. I'm a Die Hard Reds fan, and has been all my life, and it KILLS me to see one of the greatest hitters of all time, not only in baseball, but in REDS history to do this. I use the word courage very lightly, but - yes, even if he did lie for all those years, and now he's finally coming out in a ... BOOK~! and all tv, I do indeed think it has to take some courage (IN HIS OWN MIND) to finally do this. Of course, all the publicity and cash he'll get from all this helps too, I'm not denying that. He is indeed facing a danger of some of his true fans possibly turning on him for what he's doing, but I doubt that he cares.

But don't worry, like I said - I hate what he's doing as much as you do. It makes me sick and it makes alot of Reds fan sick. So don't think I believe he's a great man for doing all this, cause that's not the case.

Cheers.
2GOLD
If Pete Rose is allowed back in then Shoeless Joe Jackson should be allowed into the Hall. Here is a guy who showed no signs of attempting to throw the World Series in 1919, hit his damn heart out from the stats and wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I have studied those games from top to bottom. Plus, if anyone deserved to be screwed it was Commie.

If Rose, who I think should be in the Hall because of his stats, gets allowed back then Joe Jackson deserves to be allowed into the Hall as well.

Rose was an intelligent man who gambled AFTER his playing days, so I say don't let him become a manager then. End of story. But to say that others can stand on their stats for being racist asses (Ty Cobb for one) then Rose and Jackson should be allowed in the Hall.

Back as part of baseball? No, although the Reds wouldn't need Rose to throw games at this point. But into the Hall? Hell yes he should be allowed into the Hall.

Also, if drug users are in then that is another reason Rose should be in. Who is to say one of the heavy drug users didn't get so far into debt with a dealer he threw a game or two? No one can say they did or didn't but since we can say "Rose might throw a game to pay off gambling debts" then surely I can say "one of the drugged up losers in the Hall might have tossed one here and there to get their fix"

To say that gambling is a bigger black eye than say murder or drug dealing is a joke by MLB.

He should never be allowed to manage again but the ban should be over on both him and Jackson.
Damaramu
I don't know much about Baseball. Who's Joe Jackson and what did he do?
2GOLD
QUOTE(Damaramu @ Jan 7 2004, 02:39 PM)
I don't know much about Baseball. Who's Joe Jackson and what did he do?


Joe Jackson, better known as "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, was part of the 1919 Chicago White Sox. It is believed that the White Sox were easily the greatest team in baseball history not to win a World Series...not only did they lose, after 1919 the players might as well not have even existed.

In 1919, eight of the White Sox players were banned from Major League Baseball after they threw the World Series for mobsters because of low salaries and basic railroading by Cominsky (owner of the Chicago White Sox). The players were put on trial but found innocent since the trial was in Chicago

But that didn't stop MLB first commisioner from passing down his sentence, the eight players involved in the scandal although found innocent (which wasn't hard to believe since it was in Chicago and no one in Chi-town wanted to see the Sox dismantled) were banned from MLB for life and the first ever gambling rule was laid in place.

Jackson admitted to taking money in 1920 but said he took the money and still played his heart out to win the series, which the stats and reports back up. In a sense, Jackson was prepared to screw over the mobsters just because he loved to play baseball as it was the only thing he was truly any good at.

However, Jackson was one of the eight banned and despite numberous attempts to get back in, never did thus one of the greatest left fielders in the history of baseball will never be part of the Hall of Fame.

The story to SOME extent is told in the movie "Eight Men Out" but Hollywood didn't really get many of the facts correct.
sfaJack
QUOTE
Rose was an intelligent man who gambled AFTER his playing days, so I say don't let him become a manager then. End of story. But to say that others can stand on their stats for being racist asses (Ty Cobb for one) then Rose and Jackson should be allowed in the Hall.


Two things:

1. Who cares if Rose's "playing days" were over? He was the freakin' MANAGER of the Reds while gambling!! While technically not on the field playing in the game, he was very much a part of it at the time of his gambling, so it's entirely irrelevant whether his playing days were over or not.

Oh, and Rose was so "intelligent" that he not only got caught placing his bets, but had the ingenious idea of placing some of his bets from the Reds' clubhouse. Intelligent, indeed.

2. Being a racist ass isn't against the rules and bylaws of the game. Nobody has ever said you can't be a racist and play pro ball. It's despicable, but racism isn't a violation of any MLB rules, as far as I'm aware (outside of hiring practices/discrimination, that sort of thing, obviously). Gambling IS against the rules.

QUOTE
Also, if drug users are in then that is another reason Rose should be in. Who is to say one of the heavy drug users didn't get so far into debt with a dealer he threw a game or two? No one can say they did or didn't but since we can say "Rose might throw a game to pay off gambling debts" then surely I can say "one of the drugged up losers in the Hall might have tossed one here and there to get their fix"


Actually, you can't say that because there is no evidence that a druggie ballplayer threw any games to "get his fix." It might be fun for you to speculate that that has happened so that you can sort of prop up your Pete-Rose-Should-Be-In-The-Hall-Of-Fame argument, but it's really just pointless and baseless speculation that is useless as a valid argument.

QUOTE
To say that gambling is a bigger black eye than say murder or drug dealing is a joke by MLB.


From a moral and legal standpoint, no, gambling is not a bigger black eye than drug dealing or murder. But in the context of the game of baseball, a professional sport, it is. Like Al and others have said, the ONE thing that pro sports have to have is legitimacy, the assurance that the games are straight up athletic contests. When you have players/managers gambling on the outcome of their own sport's games, then you undermine that legitimacy, leading to a whole plethora or problems that can bring permanent consequences.

No historical precedents come to mind off the top of my head, but I think it would be safe to say that if a MLB player murdered someone and was proven guilty of it, he wouldn't be welcome back into the game, either through an outright ban or by being blackballed. Hell, if Rae Carruth got out of prison tomorrow, I doubt he'd end up back in the NFL at any point in time.

In short, fuck Pete Rose. He broke the rules, got caught, lied about it (for 14 years, no less), and is only now coming clean in a vain attempt to sell some books and possibly get the ban (that he agreed to, remember?) lifted. I used to support Rose (years ago when I was very young and stupid), but now I don't care if he ever gets in the Hall. The world will go on, I promise.
EVIL~! alkeiper
QUOTE
If Pete Rose is allowed back in then Shoeless Joe Jackson should be allowed into the Hall. Here is a guy who showed no signs of attempting to throw the World Series in 1919, hit his damn heart out from the stats and wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I have studied those games from top to bottom. Plus, if anyone deserved to be screwed it was Commie.


Without game films, its tough to say how Joe Jackson really performed. We've got his hitting stats, but fielding is an entirely different matter. Missing a cutoff man, and things like that are good ways of throwing a game which will never show up in the stat book. The best way to look at the Series itself is to look up game accounts from Hugh Fullerton, who suspected something was awry and took notes on who might've been involved.

In any case, regardless of what Jackson did during the games, he accepted $5,000. He admitted this in open court, and that the money was in exchange for throwing the 1919 World Series. That's expulsion right there.

As for the Hall of Fame, no rule existed before the Rose banishment stating a banned player could not enter the Hall of Fame. In all those years, Jackson drew two votes in 1936, and two in 1946. Obviously the voters didn't think he deserved tha hall of fame. He doesn't deserve the hall. Being stupid is not a defense, either. We wouldn't tolerate it for any other crime, so why this?

QUOTE
But that didn't stop MLB first commisioner from passing down his sentence, the eight players involved in the scandal although found innocent (which wasn't hard to believe since it was in Chicago and no one in Chi-town wanted to see the Sox dismantled) were banned from MLB for life and the first ever gambling rule was laid in place.


Actually, the players were found innocent because if they were found guilty, Arnold Rothstein would get pulled into the scandal. The chicanery was done to get the gamblers themselves out of trouble.

For a good account of the scandal, read the book the movie was based on. Eight Men Out, by Eliot Asinof. You can likely find it in your local public library.
EVIL~! alkeiper
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor..._rob&id=1702483

Rob Neyer checks in on the history of gambling.
Vern Gagne
Jackson wasn't nearly has stupid has people make him out to be. Eight Men Out was on ESPN Classic and it was either the author of the book, or an author of a Joe Jackson book said he ran a succesful store in Georgia after he had retired from playing.

What happened was he agreed to throw the series. Changed his mind, but was into deep to get out the deal. He probably figured he wouldn't get in trouble if he gave his all.
EVIL~! alkeiper
What really happened, as far as I understand, is that the players weren't paid what they were promised, and then went full-throttle. The gamblers threatened the wife of Lefty Williams to coerce him to lose the 8th game.
Bored
Yes and on top of that Dickie Kerr, who wasn't on the fix, pitched a gem in Game 3 and cost the gambler's a ton of money so after that they needed the Sox to lose the series to make their money back.
EVIL~! alkeiper
An interesting twist on Dickie Kerr. He too was banished from Major League Baseball for a time. After going 53-33 his first three years in the majors, including 2-0 in that fateful series, Kerr demanded a raise from the Sox, and sat out the 1922 season. During that time, he appeared in a semi-pro game, and Judge Landis banned him. Kerr got the banishment lifted by the '25 season, but he had lost his effectiveness. Later, as a manager for Daytona Beach, he turned Stan Musial from a pitcher with an injured shoulder into an outfielder.
Slayer
Warning: This is coming from a guy for whom Pete Rose was the world when it came to baseball in the 80's (sadly I wasn't alive to see him at his true peak in the 70's), hence the opinions might be a bit jaded

I want to see him go into the Hall of Fame, plain and simple, though I do not want to see him return to managing, not so much for the gambling thing, but because he wasn't that great a manager in the first place

As for the whole "integrity" argument, given how the "integrity" of several aspects of society (especially in sports) have gone out the window, I personally stopped caring a fair while ago
Prophet of Mike Zagurski
I love how baseball takes it's HOF seriously. Pete Rose had an incredible record and they are not putting him the HOF for his mangerial record. Baseball is only doing this cause attendance is down and it's dying as a sport cause it's BORING.
the max
QUOTE(UndertakerHart @ Jan 7 2004, 10:52 PM)
I love how baseball takes it's HOF seriously. Pete Rose had an incredible record and they are not putting him the HOF for his mangerial record. Baseball is only doing this cause attendance is down and it's dying as a sport cause it's BORING.

Idiot.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.