Should Pete Rose's Ban Be Lifted?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 2:19 AM GMT
    KEPNER-master675.jpg

    NYT: Many in baseball, including the Hall of Famers Mike Schmidt and Paul Molitor, are divided over Rose’s bid to overturn his lifetime ban for gambling.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/sports/baseball/pete-roses-statistics-4256-hits-and-a-big-error.html?ref=sports
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 1:22 PM GMT
    No.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 4:16 PM GMT
    I'm kind of "over it" myself. Although I never liked him personally, I'm a tad biased (like I'm guessing Mike Schmidt is) since he helped my Phillies finally win a World Series back in 1980. But considering the kind of stuff that was, and is, allowed to go on in this sport, the real gambling that goes on is inside the game, not with some bookie.

    Even if he's not "let back into" MLB in some formal capacity, I'd rather they just get him into Cooperstown and move on.
  • BuddhaLing

    Posts: 107

    Mar 25, 2015 7:42 PM GMT
    Definitely! Yes!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 7:48 PM GMT
    I don't care but from the looks of that pick he needs a chin lift more than anything.

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

    Actually I don't care either way - ban or chin.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 8:44 PM GMT
    Yes
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2015 10:15 PM GMT
    He's paid a price (though he should also be levied a hefty fine before reinstatement).

    If we can "forgive" a president for getting a blow job, then lying about it, we certainly can get over a baseball player who gambled. You think?
  • RSportsguy

    Posts: 1925

    Mar 25, 2015 10:17 PM GMT
    Yes! He should be in the Hall of Fame based on what he did on the field as a baseball player. I think having the player with the most hits in baseball history banned from the Hall of Fame cheapens the Hall. If you take in account that the player with the second most hits and was voted in on the first Hall of Fame class was a known racist, gambler, drunk it makes it more disheartening. Pete Rose was banned from baseball for gambling on his team while he was a manager. He would probably have never made it in as a manager anyways. He was one of the most dynamic players in the 60's and 70's. The ultimate team player. He moved from second base to outfield to third base then first base all for the benefit of his teams! Nobody is perfect and the Hall is full of players with questionable personal lives. He has been banned long enough and players (with help from top league execs turning a blind eye) have done much worse to the integrity of the game since his banishment. I wonder if we should hold the writers who vote on these players to a higher standard also. I am sure there are plenty of skeletons in their closets too.
  • honestsweat

    Posts: 183

    Mar 25, 2015 10:57 PM GMT
    Too late.

    And it is important to remember that the Baseball Hall of Fame is a privately owned enterprise. Jane Forbes Clark is very well off (to put it mildly) and is therefore not beholden to anyone. No amount of public pressure or opinion can sway the governing body's decision-making process.

    One has to wonder if Rose has done something to personally alienate the Clark family.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2015 8:42 PM GMT
    I think the Hall of Fame should simply recognize the excellence of the performer, not his moral compass. Therefore, yes.
  • builtnycguy

    Posts: 256

    Mar 26, 2015 9:24 PM GMT
    Rose knew what the consequences of his actions would be, but he gambled anyway. The rationale for excluding Rose from baseball that Bud Selig, the former commissioner, always used is the historical precedence of the Chicago "Black Sox" throwing the 1919 World Series, an event that nearly destroyed the entire credibility of the major leagues. So if the Hall admits Rose, should it then also consider admitting some players who, although really good, almost ended professional baseball? And what message do you want to send today's (and tomorrow's) players -- gamble or cheat however you want and then just wait it out and everyone will forgive and forget? If the Hall ever breaks down and admits him, I hope it's posthumously. Don't give him the satisfaction of knowing he's in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2015 11:35 PM GMT
    Yes. But, with that being said, how much do you want to bet that Pete Rose is gambling again?
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Mar 27, 2015 6:23 AM GMT
    Will he be in The Baseball Hall of Fame? Pete would bet on that if given the odds and the right dollar signicon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2015 1:20 PM GMT
    builtnycguy saidRose knew what the consequences of his actions would be, but he gambled anyway. The rationale for excluding Rose from baseball that Bud Selig, the former commissioner, always used is the historical precedence of the Chicago "Black Sox" throwing the 1919 World Series, an event that nearly destroyed the entire credibility of the major leagues. So if the Hall admits Rose, should it then also consider admitting some players who, although really good, almost ended professional baseball? And what message do you want to send today's (and tomorrow's) players -- gamble or cheat however you want and then just wait it out and everyone will forgive and forget? If the Hall ever breaks down and admits him, I hope it's posthumously. Don't give him the satisfaction of knowing he's in.


    MLB was able to tie the '19 Black Sox's specific actions on the field with their choices to bet against themselves...

    WikiAfter throwing a strike with his first pitch of the Series, Eddie Cicotte's second pitch struck Cincinnati leadoff hitter Morrie Rath in the back, delivering a pre-arranged signal confirming the players' willingness to go through with the fix.

    Williams, one of the "Eight Men Out," lost three games, a Series record. Dickie Kerr, who was not part of the fix, won both of his starts. Cicotte bore down and won Game 7 of the best-of-9 Series; he was angry that the gamblers were now reneging on their promised payments, as they claimed that all the money was in the hands of bookies. Joseph J. "Sport" Sullivan, the gambler who initiated the fix, then paid infamous gangster Harry F to threaten to hurt Lefty Williams and his family if he did not lose the upcoming game 8. The White Sox lost Game 8 on October 9, ending the series.

    Whatever Williams had been told made its impression. In the first inning throwing nothing but mediocre fastballs, he gave up four straight one-out hits for three runs before manager Kid Gleason relieved him.


    ...conversely, while Rose's actions as a manager were questionable (because he sucked, lol), MLB failed to create a linkage between his managerial decisions and the specific bets that he made. Either they failed, or they declined to try.

    WikiDowd interviewed many of Rose's associates, including alleged bookies and bet runners. He delivered a summary of his findings to the Commissioner in May. In it, Dowd documented Rose's alleged gambling activities in 1985 and 1986 and compiled a day-by-day account of Rose's alleged betting on baseball games in 1987. The Dowd Report documented his alleged bets on 52 Reds games in 1987, where Rose wagered a minimum of $10,000 a day. Others alleged to have been involved in the activities claim that number was actually $2,000 a day.


    Rose was adamant that he never bet against his Reds while he was on their payroll, and MLB never could prove it.

    Still, their ban was based on the need to assume he did... lest some media members dig up some later proof that would embarrass both Rose and the league. Despite the lead investigator's post-report assertions, a quarter-century has gone by and, still, no such proof exists that Rose bet against the team he managed.

    WikiThe (1989) Dowd Report says, "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Reds," but investigator (John) Dowd stated in a December 2002 interview that he believed Rose probably bet against the Reds while managing them.

    Those critical of Rose's behavior, including Ohio's own Hall of Fame baseball reporter, Hal McCoy, have observed that "the major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game."

    The Major League Baseball rule that Rose violated prohibits any bet on a game the bettor is involved in, making no distinction between betting for or against one's team. The rule is: "Rule 21 Misconduct, (d) Betting on Ball Games, Any player, umpire, or club, or league official, or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."


    Now, no part of "Charlie Hustle"'s playing days would suggest that he, unlike the Black Sox, was betting against himself and trying to fix games.

    Rose became a victim of MLB's no-tolerance policy that came about because of the Black Sox. MLB was no longer in a position to split hairs over how or why a player/manager gambles on games.

    As far as consequences, Rose knew he risked fines and/or an indefinite suspension, with conditions attached to the possibility of reinstatement at some undeterminable time... but not a permanent, lifelong ban.

    Rose would later argue he was snookered (by then-Commish Bart Giamatti) into voluntarily accepting the basis for a ban when he thought he was accepting the terms for an indefinite suspension: "You have to do X, Y, Z and prove A, B, C, just to have a chance to request reinstatement in the future," not "We don't care what you do from here on out... you're outta here!"

    If Rose had a lawyer worth his salt he would have continued to negotiate with MLB, rather than simply try to "get it over with." It also didn't help that the guy he thought he was making an indefinite-suspension-deal with first insisted this was a ban, then croaked about a week later. MLB's real hangup with Rose is not about fearing he'll gamble again, but besmirching the legacy of their endeared ex-Commish.

    WikiOn August 24, 1989, Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent place on baseball's ineligible list. Rose accepted that there was a factual reason for the ban; in return, Major League Baseball agreed to make no formal finding with regard to the gambling allegations.

    According to baseball's rules, Rose could apply for reinstatement in one year but Bart Giamatti said, "There is absolutely no deal for reinstatement. That is exactly what we did not agree to in terms of a fixed number of years..." Rose began therapy with a psychiatrist for treatment of a gambling addiction.

    Giamatti died of a heart attack on September 1, 1989, eight days after announcing Rose's suspension.
  • builtnycguy

    Posts: 256

    Mar 27, 2015 8:36 PM GMT
    Oh, and he killed Bart Giamatti -- another reason he won't get in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2015 6:36 PM GMT
    builtnycguy saidOh, and he killed Bart Giamatti -- another reason he won't get in.

    O.J. Simpson killed his wife and he's still in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
  • jo2hotbod

    Posts: 3603

    Mar 30, 2015 4:57 AM GMT
    Nope he broke baseballs cardinal rule, he also agreed to the ban. What's that tell you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 8:20 PM GMT
    dayumm saidRose was adamant that he never bet against his Reds while he was on their payroll, and MLB never could prove it.

    Still, their ban was based on the need to assume he did... lest some media members dig up some later proof that would embarrass both Rose and the league. Despite the lead investigator's post-report assertions, a quarter-century has gone by and, still, no such proof exists that Rose bet against the team he managed...

    Now, no part of "Charlie Hustle"'s playing days would suggest that he, unlike the Black Sox, was betting against himself and trying to fix games.


    There's still no evidence that he bet AGAINST the Reds as a player, but ESPN's new report out today is pretty damning evidence that Pete lied about never betting "as a player, period."

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986

    Pete'll get his long-awaited hearing with the MLB Commissioner next month about reinstatement, but he's toast as far as Cooperstown is concerned. There's a good chance he'll put a kibosh on public events for the time being as well.

    ESPNFor 26 years, Pete Rose has kept to one story: He never bet on baseball while he was a player.

    Yes, he admitted in 2004, after almost 15 years of denials, he had placed bets on baseball, but he insisted it was only as a manager.

    But new documents obtained by Outside the Lines indicate Rose bet extensively on baseball -- and on the Cincinnati Reds -- as he racked up the last hits of a record-smashing career in 1986. The documents go beyond the evidence presented in the 1989 Dowd report that led to Rose's banishment and provide the first written record that Rose bet while he was still on the field.

    "This does it. This closes the door," said John Dowd, the former federal prosecutor who led MLB's investigation.

    The documents are copies of pages from a notebook seized from the home of former Rose associate Michael Bertolini during a raid by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in October 1989, nearly two months after Rose was declared permanently ineligible by Major League Baseball. Their authenticity has been verified by two people who took part in the raid, which was part of a mail fraud investigation and unrelated to gambling. For 26 years, the notebook has remained under court-ordered seal and is currently stored in the National Archives' New York office, where officials have declined requests to release it publicly.
  • Nakedman1969

    Posts: 247

    May 24, 2016 10:58 PM GMT
    No he shouldn't be!!!!
  • mcbrion

    Posts: 305

    May 28, 2016 10:48 PM GMT
    Not knowing enough about baseball, I looked up the Rules of Eligibility. One of the points is:
    "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

    So, based on that rule, what reason would you offer for the ban being revoked?
  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    Jun 04, 2016 5:40 AM GMT
    I like Rose. He was a tough gamer that played hard everyday. But, he broke a big rule, don't bet on baseball. He has lied about it and has continued to lie about it. He will not come clean and wants to be in the Hall Of Fame. He should be for what he did as a player. No doubt. Great player. But, he chose to gamble on baseball, knowing the risk that it would cost him Hall of Fame. He chose his situation. The thing that screwed Pete Rose is Pete Rose.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 802

    Jul 07, 2016 3:25 PM GMT
    "Should Pete Rose's Ban Be Lifted?"

    Yes.