Pete Rose signed agreement to come back?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Which was "proven" with largely circumstantial evidence in what was essentially a prosecution document.

It was proven by betting slips, on the Reds, with Rose's fingerprints all over them, as well as notebooks and papers in Rose's handwriting, all full of betting information. Call it "circumstantial" if it keeps you warm at night, but also remember there's no legal burden of proof here. This was a baseball proceeding, not something conducted in a court of law. If Rose really felt the Dowd report was flimsy (and that baseball breached the contract), why hasn't he sued them?

 

I'm disputing the fact that he should be banned from the Hall of Fame for betting on baseball after his career was over.

But his career wasn't over. He was actively involved with the game, as a manager. Sure, his playing credentials, not his managerial ones, would be the ones to get him in the Hall, but the fact remains that he bet on his own team while he was the manager, and got the penalty called for by the rules of baseball.

 

So how can you tell him the hit record doesn't mean anything? 

It's not that it doesn't mean anything; it just doesn't override the fact that he committed the game's cardinal sin.

 

Rose made his bed, and he's been lying in it ever since. I have no sympathy for him.

[JHawk 0]

This was a baseball proceeding, not something conducted in a court of law.

 

Rose and Commissioner Giamatti also had a highly publicized feud going on at the time, even before the betting allegations came up. Who's to say the proceedings were conducted fairly in the first place? They may very well have been, but even you have to admit there's a chance that they weren't.

 

If Rose really felt the Dowd report was flimsy (and that baseball breached the contract), why hasn't he sued them?

 

We've already established that Pete Rose isn't exactly Albert Einstein. Even if the Dowd Report is 100% accurate, a blind man could see that baseball breached the contract by A) changing the rule for applying for reinstatement and not grandfathering it for Rose and B) giving the "if you admit it, we'll reinstate you" clause (which is bullshit because if he ever admits to it, that will just be another excuse to keep him out of the Hall).

 

But his career wasn't over. He was actively involved with the game, as a manager. Sure, his playing credentials, not his managerial ones, would be the ones to get him in the Hall, but the fact remains that he bet on his own team while he was the manager, and got the penalty called for by the rules of baseball.

 

So if Bob Eucker (sp?) bet on a Brewers game tomorrow, they'd have to kick him out of the Hall of Fame? He's still involved with the game, and he'd technically be betting on his own team.

 

It's not that it doesn't mean anything; it just doesn't override the fact that he committed the game's cardinal sin.

 

No offense, DrTom, but you're the last guy who should be throwing around a phrase like "cardinal sin".

 

Rose made his bed, and he's been lying in it ever since. I have no sympathy for him.

 

Neither do I. Didn't I already make the point that as far as I was concerned, they could tell him not to even show up to accept his HOF plaque? That way, the fans would get what a majority of them want (Pete in the Hall and this argument forever erased from their memories) and baseball would still be rid of Pete Rose.

 

Or am I thinking with too much common sense?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Who's to say the proceedings were conducted fairly in the first place? They may very well have been, but even you have to admit there's a chance that they weren't.

Sure, the chance is there, but I think it's quite remote. Giamatti never struck me as an unfair man. I think he knew the importance of his office and treated it with the proper respect.

 

Besides, if the proceedings were unfair, Rose could have claimed he signed the contract under duress. And while he may not be the sharpest tack in the wall, his lawyer(s) should certainly be able to give him this kind of advice.

 

Even if the Dowd Report is 100% accurate, a blind man could see that baseball breached the contract...

Two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, if the contract was breached, why didn't Rose's lawyers jump on this when it happened?

 

So if Bob Eucker (sp?) bet on a Brewers game tomorrow, they'd have to kick him out of the Hall of Fame?

Is Eucker in the Hall? He must have gotten in as a broadcaster. I don't know if they'd kick him out, since he'd already been enshrined, which Rose wasn't, but it would certainly prevent him from getting in if he weren't. There is a difference, though, between being a manager and a broadcaster. Broadcasters are often employed by the cable companies, though many are employed directly by the teams.

 

No offense, DrTom, but you're the last guy who should be throwing around a phrase like "cardinal sin".

Yeah, yeah. While I might be an atheist, I know a lot more about the Christian faiths (Catholicism in particular) than people who claim to practice it.

 

That way, the fans would get what a majority of them want (Pete in the Hall and this argument forever erased from their memories) and baseball would still be rid of Pete Rose.

What about the fans (like me), who don't want him in the same zip code as the HOF? Don't we count? Or does a simple poll carry the day?

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

Actually if you conduct a poll on baseball fans that are well versed in the entire Pete Rose situation you'll find that the majority of them don't think he should be in the hall of fame. Sure if you poll some beered up fans at a Reds game they'd think he should be in it.

 

The Dowd Report was 100% accurate. Unless Pete Rose has fingerprints that change then I don't see how you could possibly question the validity of that investigation.

 

If Rose was having some other disagreement with the Commissioner at the time then he's just even more of a dumbass. That's like going out and taking a pipe to a police officers car while he's still in it.

 

Rose breeched his contract when he broke the rule that stated that betting on the game will not be tolerated. By him betting on his own game and a sport that so much of America has a deep passion for Rose basically said to the fans and his fellow players, "Hey Fuck You, I'm bigger then the game."

 

The bottom line is while Rose is alive he'll only get to be in the hall of fame if he takes a tour of it as a fan.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Actually if you conduct a poll on baseball fans that are well versed in the entire Pete Rose situation you'll find that the majority of them don't think he should be in the hall of fame. Sure if you poll some beered up fans at a Reds game they'd think he should be in it.

 

A 1994 article in Sports Illustrated reported a telephone poll of Americans in which 97% of respondents said that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. Must have been a lot of uneducated people they got there.

 

It was proven by betting slips, on the Reds, with Rose's fingerprints all over them, as well as notebooks and papers in Rose's handwriting, all full of betting information.

 

Those betting slips are very questionable. The betting slip for April 9, 1987, contains a reference to Philadelphia-Atlanta when the Phillies never played the Braves that day. On top of this, other hand writing analysts contradict the testimony of the expert who testified.

 

The fact of the matter is that the case came down to the testimony of two drug dealers (among other things). Giamatti then gave a letter of recommendation to the judges ruling on sentencing for Janszen and Peters (the two men in question). Sweet deal for them.

 

 

The Rose - Giamatti agreement read:

 

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© 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.

 

 

 

On top of this there was no mention of the hall of fame in the agreement. Also at the time, there was no rule stating that players who were on baseball's ineligible list could not be considered as candidates. That rule was not put in place until late 1990 or early 1991.

 

So basically, Rose agreed to the deal upon the basis that he did deserve a minimum one year suspension for various actions but not that those actions involved betting on baseball. However, ten minutes later in the press conference Giamatti turned around and said that Rose was guilty.

 

On top of this, Rose had no idea that his hall of fame eligibility would be in question because there was no rule restricting anyone on baseball's ineligible list being in the hall.

[The Czech Republic 0]

There is a difference, though, between being a manager and a broadcaster. Broadcasters are often employed by the cable companies, though many are employed directly by the teams.

Is that so? I think that might have to do with the coverage and such...some broadcasters are employed by the teams, some by the cable company/TV/radio station.

 

Or in the case of the Cubs, the station owns the team, so it's all the same.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Actually if you conduct a poll on baseball fans that are well versed in the entire Pete Rose situation you'll find that the majority of them don't think he should be in the hall of fame. Sure if you poll some beered up fans at a Reds game they'd think he should be in it.

As this happened? Or is this speculation on your part?

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

No this hasn't happened I'm saying get 100 people in a room that have no prior opinions on the topic. Then have them read information from both sides of the story. The Dowd report, Roses agreement, how it was broken, show some highlights of his career, and any other pertent information. I guarantee you that there will be a majority that would not support him being readmitted to baseball.

 

A sports illustrated phone poll is hardly biased. Of course any hard core Rose fan is going to call up and say there favorite player should be readmitted. Thats common sense. Would I waste money on a long distance phone call for poll that doesn't matter. Hell no.

[JHawk 0]

No this hasn't happened I'm saying get 100 people in a room that have no prior opinions on the topic. Then have them read information from both sides of the story. The Dowd report, Roses agreement, how it was broken, show some highlights of his career, and any other pertent information. I guarantee you that there will be a majority that would not support him being readmitted to baseball.

 

A sports illustrated phone poll is hardly biased. Of course any hard core Rose fan is going to call up and say there favorite player should be readmitted. Thats common sense. Would I waste money on a long distance phone call for poll that doesn't matter. Hell no.

Remember that ESPN did that mock trial about putting him in the Hall. Eight out of 12 said to let him in the Hall, even though 11 out of 12 acknowledged that he probably bet on baseball. And this was after sitting there for nearly two hours and hearing all the evidence that we've discussed in depth over the last couple of days. The question of letting him back into baseball as a coach wasn't raised at all, but nobody in this thread who thinks he should be in the Hall wants him in actively, so I doubt fans outside of Cincinnati Reds fans would really want to see him back in the game as an active coach.

 

I'll be the first one to admit that the mock trial is hardly scientific proof that Pete Rose should be let into the Hall of Fame. Neither is the SI phone poll. But neither would locking 100 people into a same room for the sheer logisitics of getting people from all areas of the country. You need something called a random sample, which means that everybody has an equal shot of getting picked for said poll, and even then you need somewhere between 1200-1500 people for there to be any chance of it being accurate.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

You need something called a random sample, which means that everybody has an equal shot of getting picked for said poll, and even then you need somewhere between 1200-1500 people for there to be any chance of it being accurate.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. People from all walks of life. I'm sure the MLB will never make a true statement on what they're going to do.

 

They'll keep hashing over both sides of the stories like we've done and come to basically the same conclusion we did. However they won't act on what they conclude. I don't see any conclusion until a new unretarded commissioner takes over.

[JHawk 0]

You're implying baseball has ever had an unretarded commissioner, and I don't remember one in my lifetime.

 

But that's for another thread.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

There always is a slight chance of getting lucky and getting a good one.