kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
December 15th, 2015 at 12:25:12 PM permalink
I find myself really troubled by the commissioners comments yesterday.

Personally, I am of the belief that Pete Rose has done his time, paid for his crime and it is past time to lift his lifetime ban. Pete Rose bet on baseball while a manager and probably as a player as well. To the best of my knowledge it has only been proven that he bet ON his team. It has never been shown or I don't believe even suggested that he bet against his team and then did something or made a decision as manager to negatively influence the outcome of the game. I mean that is criminal activity and if he did that, he would deserve more than a lifetime ban, he would deserve prison time.

In the absence of that, the man has done his time. Although he is a little before my time, he is baseballs hit leader and thought to be one of the greatest hitters of all time. And unlike those homerun records of the recent decades, there is not any question of cheating or using banned substances. So, Pete Rose should be acknowledged and celebrated as one of baseball's best.

There are two things really troubling to me about the "continuing ban". One is yesterday's statement that "Commissioner Rob Manfred, who concluded the career hits leader continued to gamble even while trying to end his lifetime ban and would be a risk to the sport's integrity if allowed back in the game." Continuing to gamble?? That is not a crime. Am I to believe that no other members of the baseball Hall of fame do any kind of gambling?? (again, a completely legal activity) Why should Pete Rose be held to a higher standard? He lives in Vegas. Gambling is legal. If he wants to gamble, it has nothing to do with anything at this point.

Second thing that is troubling is that Baseball allows Pete Rose to be part of "certain" celebrations, as they did last summer at the all-star game in Cincinnati. So when it benefits baseball, they conveniently set aside this ban, but otherwise they want to continue to punish Rose. Ridiculous!
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
December 15th, 2015 at 12:30:39 PM permalink
You can constantly find baseball players in casinos from here in Detroit to A.C.to Vegas. If you don't think they're also not betting on baseball, you're sadly mistaken.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Joeman
Joeman
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1993
December 15th, 2015 at 1:38:38 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

I find myself really troubled by the commissioners comments yesterday.

Personally, I am of the belief that Pete Rose has done his time, paid for his crime and it is past time to lift his lifetime ban. Pete Rose bet on baseball while a manager and probably as a player as well. To the best of my knowledge it has only been proven that he bet ON his team. It has never been shown or I don't believe even suggested that he bet against his team and then did something or made a decision as manager to negatively influence the outcome of the game. I mean that is criminal activity and if he did that, he would deserve more than a lifetime ban, he would deserve prison time.

In the absence of that, the man has done his time. Although he is a little before my time, he is baseballs hit leader and thought to be one of the greatest hitters of all time. And unlike those homerun records of the recent decades, there is not any question of cheating or using banned substances. So, Pete Rose should be acknowledged and celebrated as one of baseball's best.

There are two things really troubling to me about the "continuing ban". One is yesterday's statement that "Commissioner Rob Manfred, who concluded the career hits leader continued to gamble even while trying to end his lifetime ban and would be a risk to the sport's integrity if allowed back in the game." Continuing to gamble?? That is not a crime. Am I to believe that no other members of the baseball Hall of fame do any kind of gambling?? (again, a completely legal activity) Why should Pete Rose be held to a higher standard? He lives in Vegas. Gambling is legal. If he wants to gamble, it has nothing to do with anything at this point.

Second thing that is troubling is that Baseball allows Pete Rose to be part of "certain" celebrations, as they did last summer at the all-star game in Cincinnati. So when it benefits baseball, they conveniently set aside this ban, but otherwise they want to continue to punish Rose. Ridiculous!

I agree, KJ. With all that has happened during the "Steroid & HGH Infused" "Live Ball" Era, for Baseball's commish to cite "integrity of the game" as a reason to continue to keep Pete out is disgraceful.
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
muleyvoice
muleyvoice
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 135
December 15th, 2015 at 1:59:49 PM permalink
This goes back a long way. Baseball owner can own race horses, have interest in race tracks and casinos since day 1. But Willy Mays was not allowed to attend Old Timers days or similar functions because he was a greeter at a Vegas casino. Lots of rumors about NFL greatest game ever played. Colts going for touchdown instead of a field goal, Unitas throwing a pass inside 10 yard line.
Supposedly because Carroll Rosenbloom had bet 100K, and Colts were favored by 3 and 1/2. Actually Carroll had a lot more than that bet on the game.
muleyvoice
muleyvoice
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 135
December 15th, 2015 at 2:11:39 PM permalink
But like all men, Pete had a dark side too.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/peter-rose-200109
NokTang
NokTang
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
December 15th, 2015 at 3:49:04 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

To the best of my knowledge it has only been proven that he bet ON his team. It has never been shown or I don't believe even suggested that he bet against his team and then did something or made a decision as manager to negatively influence the outcome of the game. I mean that is criminal activity and if he did that, he would deserve more than a lifetime ban, he would deserve prison time.



Good morning....The above is where you get it wrong....

It has been proven that he bet against his team, while he was the manger, in the "Dowd" report.

The rational is as follows...

He didn't always bet on the Reds, but never bet "against" them. However, the example over and over again was he bet on them which would suggest and implicate that the previous game, which he didn't have a wager, could be impacted. By "impacted" it is implied that decisions were made such as saving a relief pitcher's arm, in order to be better prepared for tomorrow's game which would be bet. I've never gotten over this, and agree completely with Mr. Dowd. Not betting every game is the same as "betting against" your team. If you told us he bet $10,000.usd on every game, for his team to win, you would have a basis for saying he never bet against them. But the fact he didn't bet every game dispels this logic and confirms the one and only logical conclusion, not betting on them tonight could influence decisions based upon knowing you are going to bet(or even if it's a maybe) on them tomorrow night. End of story. He bet against his team and should remain banned forever.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Gabes22
Gabes22
Joined: Jul 19, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1427
December 15th, 2015 at 4:18:30 PM permalink
Here is my take on Pete Rose. Before I say this, I am going to preface my opinion with this. I am a passionate baseball fan, played the game in college and think Pete Rose is one of the all time greats.

IMO there are a few aspects to the story which need to be pieced together.


1) Yes he bet on baseball while he was a manager. From my understanding he bet on his team to win. However does that mean on days he bet for his team, as a manager did he make moves or save players in other games, or by not betting on a particular game, tip of certain players via those actions to put money on the opposition.

2) I think in the aftermath of the banning and the subsequent years since then, he hasn't shown what I would deem as contrition. He has thumbed his nose at 3 commissioners and if you were to write a manual on bad public relations, his actions would seem to fit the manuscript

3) The historical precedence of gambling in baseball. Players like Shoeless Joe Jackson are forever banned for taking money to throw the 1919 World Series even though it can be proven Shoeless Joe took the money, he still hit .375 in the series, including the series' only home run and did not commit a defensive error.

4) The legality of gambling at the time. Yes, you could place a bet in Vegas, but were there spots on the road where he could do so during the season, in an age where the internet didn't exist. Could he place a bet in Cinci, in Chicago, St Louis, New York, Philly, Los Angeles or other NL cities on his schedule in a legal fashion, or did he have to go onto the black market?

I think when you piece it together I think Manfred made a good ruling in that Pete Rose won't be inducted into the HOF while he is alive. I think this opens the door for a posthumous induction however, and a part of me would like that to be the way it goes
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
December 15th, 2015 at 4:34:47 PM permalink
Quote: NokTang

Good morning....The above is where you get it wrong....

It has been proven that he bet against his team, while he was the manger, in the "Dowd" report.

The rational is as follows...

He didn't always bet on the Reds, but never bet "against" them. However, the example over and over again was he bet on them which would suggest and implicate that the previous game, which he didn't have a wager, could be impacted. By "impacted" it is implied that decisions were made such as saving a relief pitcher's arm, in order to be better prepared for tomorrow's game which would be bet. I've never gotten over this, and agree completely with Mr. Dowd. Not betting every game is the same as "betting against" your team. If you told us he bet $10,000.usd on every game, for his team to win, you would have a basis for saying he never bet against them. But the fact he didn't bet every game dispels this logic and confirms the one and only logical conclusion, not betting on them tonight could influence decisions based upon knowing you are going to bet(or even if it's a maybe) on them tomorrow night. End of story. He bet against his team and should remain banned forever.



I don't accept this rational, NokTang. To accept this rational is accepting a lot of assumption as fact and that is not the standard.

Furthermore the assumptions made go completely against Pete Roses nature. This man is one of the most competitive people there is. He is or was trying to win every game, both as player and coach. Winning and losing mattered to him. Records mattered to win.

Additionally, since the incidences of betting on his team occurred as manager, and to my knowledge there is nothing that shows that he did so as a player, I believe the two careers should be separated. If you want to keep him out of baseball as a manager, not allow his employment in baseball as a manager and not recognize his achievements as a manager....fine.

But as a player, he is one of the best the game has had, and didn't cheat (as per the steroid era). He deserves to be recognized for those achievements. To NOT recognize him for those achievements is not only punishing him, but punishing the fans of baseball, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia (where he also won a world series) as well as Mr. Rose.

You know damn right well that the year after Rose passes away, the ban will be lifted and he will be overwhelmingly voted into the baseball hall of fame, where he belongs, with baseball celebrating him. That should occur now in my opinion. He is an old man. He is a broken man, his name tarnished. Out of baseball, the game he loves and is his whole life for several decades...he has paid the price.

Edit: oh and one more thing. The baseball Hall of Fame is not made up of the most upstanding people. Ty Cobb, Bath Ruth and some of the other older generation players were known alcoholics, womenizers and even women beaters. It is generally accepted that one of them killed a man in a bar fight.

Lets keep the baseball hall of fame about what happened ON the field, not the character of the person. Pete Rose was one of the best players the game has ever seen.
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 180
  • Posts: 3828
December 15th, 2015 at 4:51:45 PM permalink
Quote: Gabes22


I think when you piece it together I think Manfred made a good ruling in that Pete Rose won't be inducted into the HOF while he is alive. I think this opens the door for a posthumous induction however, and a part of me would like that to be the way it goes



Do not forget that the HOF is independent from MLB. It is the BBWAA that is keeping Rose out of the HOF. Rose is not allowed any contact with the professional game, as a manager, employee, representative, etc. But he could still gain HOF membership.
NO KILL I
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
December 15th, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM permalink
Quote: Mosca

Do not forget that the HOF is independent from MLB. But he could still gain HOF membership.



THAT is a joke!

  • Jump to: