Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?
by KevinAugust 23rd, 2006
The whole household has a low grade cold of some kind, so I don’t much feel up to a post any more complex than “Puppies: good.” So, a question: should that lying, cheating little twerp Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame. Justify your answer. This quiz will count five percent toward your final grade.
Yes. And so should Joe Jackson.
And I take umbrage with your characterization of Pete Rose as a cheater. He was never accused of cheating. Take away slippery slope reasoning, and Pete Rose didn’t do anything wrong. The NFL takes a much more lenient approach with gambling (one year suspension) and I don’t believe football is rampant with corruption. Back when players made everyman money they might have been susceptible to gambling corruption, but those days are long gone.
To not include the all-time hit leader in the Hall is silly. Anyone who doubts his credentials should go to peterose.com and check out his records. (I will admit that the record for hubris is overlooked on his site.) Explain to me how someone interested in the history of baseball (i.e. a visitor to Cooperstown) would not want to learn about Rose’s career. Include the betting scandal, it is relevant.
It is also worth noting that Pete’s transgressions occurred in his second baseball career - as a manager. One might argue that his management career could be shunned by the Hall but his player career accepted.
This issue really boils down to what does election to the Hall of Fame represent. Is it a character endorsement (boring, arbitrary, and imo irrelevant), is it recognition of on the field accomplishments, or is it documentation of historical aspects of the game. If it is the first, Ty Cobb should be removed immediately. If it is either of the latter two, then Rose is a unanimous first ballot member.
Rose is a no brainer for me. The more difficult question is how to handle the juicers. Their accomplishments are in part directly attributable to their transgressions. No one can claim that about Charlie Hustle.
Ignoring the bit about history, I’m still not sure that “character endorsement [or] recognition of on the field accomplishments” are exhaustive alternatives. Perhaps Hall of Fame membership represent “being an exemplary player”, which could be taken to mean more than “on the field accomplishment”. For one thing, it may reasonably require adhering to the rules of the league, which are not arbitrary even if they’re boring.
Rose broke a sacrosanct rule of baseball, put in place in response to the worse scandal the game had ever endured. He did it knowingly and deceptively, and then lied about it at great length. You may dislike the rule (although it’s not a “slippery-slope rule” - it bans actual gambling, in response to an actual gambling problem), but that’s not the point. Rose isn’t entitled to break rules, even if they’re “slippery-slope” rules or for any other reason, and especially not in a management role. He wasn’t just throwing a spitball or breaking early on an outfield fly - he was playing with the kind of fire that almost destroyed the entire game, and he then covered it up and whined for years to weasel his way out of taking responsibility.
It seems reasonable to me that trafficking with gamblers was enough to keep Shoeless Joe out of the Hall (if you think he’s guilty, which is disputed), and it ought to be enough to keep Rose out, who was less guilty (he didn’t throw games - he just went into debt to bookies who would have liked him to throw games) but far more of a jerk.
KTK, I was not clear about slippery slope. I was not referring to the rule, I was referring to the logic behind the rule. Gambling, per se, does no damage to baseball. The theory is that by associating with gamblers, one will be willing to throw the game. That is the slippery slope. The Black Sox players did not do wrong by gambling. They did wrong by intentionally losing a World Series. There is a significant difference.
It is worth noting that professional golfers frequently bet on themselves to win. Gambling is a part of golf. Has not seemed to hurt the game. Horse racing only exists because of gambling.
Rose broke a rule, as a manager, no denying that. But was it really worse than using a corked bat (Sosa did it “by mistake” - right), doctoring a baseball, taking banned substances, being an outright thug (Albert Belle), killing two people (OJ is in Canton). (Note that your inclusion of leaving early on a fly ball on a list of infractions is incongruous. Leaving early on a fly is not prohibited by baseball any more than getting thrown out stealing is. It is part of the game, and there are specific rules that address the situation within the context of the game. A player is not subject to league discipline by leaving early on a fly. Your inclusion of this makes me wonder if you have ever played the game.)
“Exemplary Player”, off field accomplishments - I don’t subscribe to that at all. I don’t need athletes to be heroes. I don’t care about their personal lives, their politics, or their personalities. I care about their on-the-field accomplishments. Off the field they are no different than anyone else. The official HOF site lists preserving history, honoring excellence, and connecting generations on the main page. Nothing about being a boy scout. Ty Cobb was very far from an exemplary human being.
Note that I am not arguing against Rose being banned from Baseball after he was caught gambling. One can argue that protects the game. But to pretend his career did not exist does not protect the game.
Just a reminder: Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent spot on the HOF ineligible list in return for MLB’s promise to make no official finding in relation to alleged betting on the Cincinnati Reds when he was their manager in the 1980s. Pete is partially responsible for Pete not being in the HOF. I don’t think he should be allowed to be considered for induction into the HOF until he releases MLB from their promise, so that we can know whether he in fact did bet on his own team while a manager.
S-Town,
I believe there are a couple of errors in your post.
1) Rose has admitted to betting on the Reds.
2) He agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball, with the provision he coule reapply after a year (some lifetimes are shorter than others I guess). This agreement was with MLB. The Hall is a completely independent entity. Before Rose, there was no official policy on banned players getting into the Hall. He entered into no agreement with the Hall. After his ban, the Hall instituted a policy that no banned player could be considered.
The Hall can change their policy if they choose to, or MLB can lift the ban. Perhaps a solution would be to elect him posthumously. I imagine the ban expires after his death; he does not get the satisfaction of being elected; and the Hall ends up including one of the 10 best players of all time.
Regarding appropriate criteria for membership, the Baseball Hall of Fame itself says: “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.” (They also explicitly prohibit “automatic induction” for performance milestones alone.)
By the Hall’s own rules, I would think Rose is disqualified on at least a third, maybe half, of the criteria listed. Nobody doubts his record, playing ability, or contributions to his team - but “off-field” (baseball-related) factors make up half of the Hall’s standards.
Note too that those are the standards applied to all previous inductees. I wouldn’t think that Rose, as good as he was, was so good that his physical skills simply obviate standards that were applied to the likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gherig, Joe Dimaggio, Satchel Paige, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron . . . . I’d agree that Ty Cobb is arguably disqualified on the same criteria, but that’s another matter. (As a counterpoint, the Hall of Fame Web site shows that Cobb received the third-highest percentage of votes favoring induction - over 98% of sportswriters voted for him on the first-ever induction ballot. Almost 5% didn’t vote for Babe Ruth!)
Before reading the comments:
Rose’s accomplishments should be — and, in fact, are — in the hall of fame. His bust, however, should not be. After all, he himself willingly signed the agreement that included the lifetime ban, and he did so for a reason.
Now if Rose were the least bit repentant about breaking the most sacred rule in baseball, and if his bust included mention of the disgrace, I’d be willing to reconsider.
Shoeless Joe is another matter. I think a very good case can be made for his admission.
After reading comments:
I mostly agree with KTK. On Cobb, I’d say that I’m against taking him out only because he’s not around to defend himself. But yeah, he was a piece of shit. That said, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Rose was a great player, no doubt, but he’s an arrogant, unrepentant prick, and his own actions (as well as an agreement he entered voluntarily) are responsible for his exclusion from the hall. All other debate aside, the biggest thing keeping Pete Rose out of the hall of fame is Pete Rose. The SOB does TV ads for Casinos and sports books, for Chrissakes!
Ted:
Regarding the corked bat, it’s a pretty stupid method of cheating. I’ll have to see if I can dig it up, but I remember reading a couple of studies that showed that corking not only didn’t help hitters send the ball farther, it actually seemed to hurt.
Corked bats
1) I as aware that Pete finally confessed to betting on baseball in 2004 as a publicity stunt to sell his just-published book, but I am unaware of a confession that he bet on the Reds.
2) What does a “lifetime ban” mean if not for the duration of Pete’s life? If Pete can accept a position on the HOF ineligible list as a part of an agreement with MLB, then that suggests that the MLB and the HOF are not entities independent of each other.
Pete’s on-field skill set will always be popularly acknowledged as one of the top ones in baseball history. That’s the very definition of the word “fame.” He need not be inducted into a specific hall to enjoy “fame” among fans, who should never forget the greats. I’m not sure that his unpenitent behavior in the wake of his gambling addiction qualifies him for anything more than that.
KTK, I disagree with your reading of the requirements, and reality supports me. Nowhere is “off-field” mentioned in the requirements. This is your interpretation. Since this is the Baseball Hall of Fame, I believe all of these terms relate to the individual as a player or manager. The Hall has racists, drunks, womanizers, wife-beaters, and others whose non-baseball character is suspect. One can be an excellent teammate and a horrific member of society. Rose demonstrated his integrity by playing hard on every play. I am unaware of any teammate of his who has stated he did not want Rose on his team.
T.O. is the current athlete that epitomizes non-team player overshadowing extraordinary natural talent. His teammates end up wanting him off the team. He has no character or integrity within the framework of a team. Outside of football, he’s not a bad guy as far as I know. Contrast him with Ray Lewis. At a minimum, he obstructed a murder investigation. Not a model citizen. And he is admired and respected as a teammate by everyone on his team. My point here is competitive team sports is not a microcosm of society. Different criteria are used to evaluate members of a team. One can demonstrate integrity and character within a team but be a loser in the real world. Anyone reading this who has participated in team sports at an elite level has met the type of person I am referring to. Athletics has been their entire life, and they understand and respect the parameters of a team. They function well in that environment. But not in society at large.
I admire elite athletes for their athletic ability, but I would not choose to be friends with many of them. This is how I view the Hall of Fame. Note that Kevin’s question was “should” Rose be in Cooperstown, not “can” he be there. For me, his ability, accomplishments, dedication to the game, and leadership within the context of baseball more than meet the requirements for admittance. And I would never invite him to a dinner party.
Put in political perspective, should Clinton’s marital failures or his abhorrent behavior towards women in his private life overshadow his political achievements? How about Teddy Kennedy, or Jack?
How about just getting rid of the useless, anachronistic “sport” of baseball? How can something that gives George Will an erection be worth while?
Ted:
The Hall has racists, drunks, womanizers, wife-beaters, and others whose non-baseball character is suspect.
In what weird universe does gambling on baseball while actively involved in baseball games constitute “non-baseball character?”
I am unaware of any teammate of his who has stated he did not want Rose on his team.
I’m pretty sure Johnny Bench has made his contempt for Rose abundantly clear.
Put in political perspective, should Clinton’s marital failures or his abhorrent behavior towards women in his private life overshadow his political achievements?
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, unless you can show me where Clinton voluntarily signed a lifetime ban from politics and from the politicians’ hall of fame…
Now if you were asking if Clinton’s marital failures should preclude him from recieving the highest honor we could bestow upon him, then that answer may very well be “yes.” And, in fact, for better or worse, fair or not, his marital indiscretion does overshadow his political achievements (as do several wholly unfounded allegations of other misconduct for which there isn’t a scrap of credible evidence — but I digress). I think you’ve selected exactly the wrong example to make your case. 
I would need a reference to a quote from Bench where he says he would have preferred to not have Rose on his team. I have never heard him say this, and don’t believe he ever did.
People bet on themselves to win in sports all the time. I have never heard this characterized as a lack of character. Also note that gambling addiction is now known to be a disease. Most enlightened folk do not equate gambling addiction with lack of character.
Had the White Sox scandal not occurred, there would be no death penalty for gambling, and Rose would be in the Hall of Fame. On the first ballot. The reason he is not in the Hall of Fame is because he broke a League rule. Nothing more, nothing less. Take away the rule and all the talk about character and integrity disappears. So, for me, it boils down to: does the breaking of the rule - as a manager - trump his accomplishments as a player. For me, the answer is no.
Professional athletes are entertainers. I am unwilling to assign them more importance than that. I care about how well they perform as athletes, and generally assume they are not much beyond that. I don’t care what actors do or say or what their politics are. An actor should get an Oscar based on his or her acting, not on “off-the-set” integrity. Same with baseball.
Ted:
I would need a reference to a quote from Bench where he says he would have preferred to not have Rose on his team.
Oh, I doubt that he ever came right out and said that. But just because nobody said it doesn’t mean they didn’t think it. In any case, it’s not critical to my point, so I don’t mind conceding it.
Had the White Sox scandal not occurred, there would be no death penalty for gambling, and Rose would be in the Hall of Fame.
And had the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling been upheld, we’d have had at least one term of president Gore. Woulda, shoulda, coulda. Fact is, it did happen.
The reason he is not in the Hall of Fame is because he broke a League rule. Nothing more, nothing less.
Umm, that’s no trivial thing, however. And it’s not just any league rule. It’s rather like saying “The reason Lincoln died is because John Wilkes Booth shot him.” It’s an important reason! And in any case, it’s not just because he broke the rule — in fact, initially, it wasn’t because of that at all. He signed the ban agreement voluntarily without admitting guilt. As I said, the biggest thing between Pete Rose and the Hall is Pete Rose.
To me, the HOF is an honor, and character and integrity (especially as related to the sport in question) matter in choosing whether or not to bestow an honor. And that’s as it should be.
As an aside, on the Cobb issue, if he were up for induction today, I would vote against it. But I think the bar for stripping an honor, once bestowed, should be a lot higher than for simply not bestowing it in the first place.
Finally, a hypothetical for you. Suppose fairly compelling evidence were to come to light, suggesting that Rose threw a game as manager. Would that be enough to disqualify him from the Hall, in your mind? Or are his accomplishments as a player literally the only thing that matter to you?
Also note that gambling addiction is now known to be a disease. Most enlightened folk do not equate gambling addiction with lack of character.
Wow, I’m proud of you! That’s touchy-feely lib’rul talk!
R.e. Booth, if the question was “Should Lincoln have served a full term?”, then my answer would have been yes.
If Rose threw a game as Manager… After thinking about it for a bit, I would then reverse my position. My reasoning: to do so would show a lack of respect for the game - as opposed to a lack of respect for a specific League rule that is not inherent to baseball (as opposed to the concept of play to win), but rather an over-reaction to an event that occurred almost 100 years ago.
Here is a hypothetical for you: In 1924, Curley Ogden gives up a home run to Linstrom to lead off the 7th game of the World Series. This proves to be the difference in the game and the Senators lose. It turns out the reason Ogden was only slated to pitch to one batter (he actually pitched to two, and struck out Linstrom) was because he had been drinking heavily the night before and had a severe hangover. His severe dehydration was responsible for an 8 mph drop in his fastball, and was the reason Linstrom went yard instead of striking out. Congress calls for an investigation into the illegal use of alcohol by MLB players. In response, MLB passes a rule that any player that drinks is banned for life. The 21st Amendment is never ratified, and the rule stands throughout the 20th Century (even though state governments have found a loophole and now operate their own distilleries and breweries and advertise and sell alcohol to the public to generate revenue). Pete Rose admits to drinking the night before games he manages. Should he be banned from consideration to the Baseball Hall of Fame?
Put in political perspective, should Clinton’s marital failures or his abhorrent behavior towards women in his private life overshadow his political achievements?
Fred: Yes.
Ted:
I still think you’re missing the point. A rule you disagree with is still a rule in place. We can’t selectively enforce those rules we like and ignore those we don’t, at least not without making the rules nearly irrelevant. And I’m not so sure I agree with your assessment that it was an “overreaction.” This assessment lacks historical perspective. The Black Sox scandal nearly destroyed the sport, and Rose’s actions gave at least the appearance of impropriety. By betting on baseball, like it or not, Rose called into question the integrity of every game he managed. And baseball put the rule into effect to combat precisely that scenario.
If I break the law, I don’t get to avoid punishment just because I think it’s a stupid law anyway. I don’t see why Rose should get special treatment here. He’s done nothing since to deserve it.
“Rose called into question the integrity of every game he managed” For you maybe, but this is the first time I have ever heard such a claim. Knowing that professional golfers frequently make large side bets on themselves, does this bring into the question the integrity of every golf tournament? Or does this special relationship exist only in baseball?
Did the White Sox nearly destroy the sport? What does that mean? The year after the scandal, attendance was up almost 40% to an all-time high. There is zero empirical evidence that the Series fix caused harm to baseball. Also, as stated before, that was not about baseball players betting on baseball. it was about intentionally losing the World Series so non-players could make a lot of money.
Mantle, Mays, and the Boss were all be permanently suspended and then reinstated. It can happen, and I think it should happen for Rose.
You also did not answer my hypothetical - which I so diligently constructed..
Ted:
Didn’t know the attendance thing; need to look into that.
Also, I didn’t answer your hypothetical because it was so darn convoluted, I couldn’t follow it!
Bottom line is, if a player knowingly violated an extremely-well-known rule of the sport, particularly one which is widely known to be viewed within the sport as extremely important for historical and other reasons, and that player volunteers to be banned from the sport rather than possibly face criminal charges, then I don’t see why we should make a special exception for that player, no matter what he did on the field.
Oh, and as to Rose calling into question the integrity of every game he managed, it’s because it’s bound to make people wonder whether he adjusted the way he managed games based on how he had bet on them. There’s certainly not compelling enough evidence of this for a court of law, but the court of public opinion (which you could argue matters more here) is another matter.
The bottom line to me is that to admit Rose into the hall is to say that the rules don’t matter (or, at least that rule doesn’t). And to me, a hall of fame that completely disregards absolutely everything anyone ever did except what they did on the field, as a player isn’t much of a hall. But maybe I’m weird that way.
Oh, and by the way, do the side bets that golfers make involve point spreads and oddsmaking? Because if they do, I’d think that makes things suspect, too.
There’s a difference between a friendly gentlemen’s bet, even one that involves money, and a sports book.
Tgirsch, fyi, betting in baseball does not involve point spreads, so I’m not sure how that enters the equation. I really don’t understand the difference between using a book and direct betting, or to use your euphemism. a “gentlemen’s bet”. To be honest, I don’t understand why gambling is illegal in most states, yet those same states sponsor lotteries. The word hypocritical springs to mind. (My hypothetical above alluded to this, but I guess it was unclear.)
I promise I won’t mention this again, but it does not seem to be getting across: at the time Rose signed his agreement, there was no formal link between being banned from MLB and ineligibility to the Hall. Also, his agreement explicitly provided for appeal for reinstatement. This is basically like parole in the criminal justice system. By your reasoning, a person who pleads guilty to a sentence - with parole provision - should not be considered for parole because they pleaded guilty. I take a different view.
Ted:
Having never gambled on sports, I’m not entirely sure how baseball betting works.
As to parole, doesn’t that require some level of repentance and good behavior for approval? Rose has shown neither.
Tgirsch, I realize we are stringing out a rather mundane topic here, but you keep moving the goal
OK, so now I have to defend Rose’s post-gambling suspension behavior so he can have a shot at the Hall? Well, to my knowledge - which I admit is none to complete on the subject - Rose has broken no laws, been arrested, or that type of thing since then. Assuming that is the case, that qualifies as good behavior. As for repentance, I would say no, that is not a requirement in the criminal justice system for petty crimes (such as gambling). As long as the inmate exhibits good behavior, they do not need to repent for gambling or drug possession to gain parole.
My final comments on the subject: Pete Rose is not a model citizen. From what I know of him, he is a jerk. What he did was wrong. His athletic accomplishments deserve to be recognized by a body that exists to recognize athletic accomplishments. In my opinion. Now, if I don’t at least get an A for effort from Kevin, I’m complaining to the Principal. (or is it the Principle?)
THE HALL OF FAME IS ABOUT SPORTS. IT IS NOT A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE GO TO JUDGE THE MORALS AND LIFESTYLES OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. THE HALL IS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE EXTREMELY TALENTED AND GIFTED IN A SPORT.
SO THAT SHOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION RIGHT THERE.
YES, PETE ROSE SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME. IN BASEBALL, THERE ARE NO DOUBTS THAT HE HAS MORE THAN PROVED HIMSELF AS HALL OF FAME WORTHY.SO? WHAT IS THE HOLD UP?
POLITICS.POLITICS AND MEDIA…
THAT IS WHAT HAS HELD THIS UP FOR SO LONG. AND THAT IS BULLSHIT!
IT IS NOT THE HALL OF MORALS. OR THE HALL OF APPROPRIATENESS.
IT IS THE HALL OF FAME FOR SPORTS.
PETE ROSE IS AN AWESOME ATHLETE. BUT HE IS ALSO A MAN. A PERSON. BOUND TO MAKE MISTAKES. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BASEBALL?
AND HE ADMITS WHAT HE HAS DONE. HE KNOWS WHAT HE DID. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION AND A LIFESTYLE THAT NONE OF US CAN IMAGINE. THE FAME. THE MONEY. THE POWER. THE RAW TALENT. THE EVER INCREASING PRESSURE FROM EVERYONE IN YOUR LIFE. EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD HAS THEIR OWN IDEA OF WHO PETE SHOULD BE. HE CAN’T PLEASE EVERYONE.THAT MAKES FOR A VERY FRUSTRATING EXISTANCE.
SO….DOES PETE ROSE DESERVE TO BE IN THE HALLOF FAME. SURE DOES! DESERVE IT? HELL YES! HE PUT IN TH WORK, THE EFFORT,AND IN A WAY MADE ALOT OF PERSONAL SACRIFICES TO PLAY A SPORT THAT FINANCIALLY BENEFITED SO MAN PEOPLE. IF PETE IS TO BE PUNISHED THEN THEY ALL SHOULD. THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT KNEW YEARS AGO THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT PETE DID. THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT MOST PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES WERE DOING. THEY DIDN’T WARN HIM…CAUSE HE FILLED THE STADIUMS. THEY STOOD BY KNOWING WHAT IT ALL COULD LEAD TO, BUT LET IT HAPPEN SO THEY COULD FILL THEIR POCKETS, AND THEN PLACE ALL THE BLAME ON HIM…WHLE THEY RIDE AWAY SCOTT FREE IN THE FANCY CARS.
PERFECT EXAMPLE IS THIS.
HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETES WHO ARE VERY GIFTED GET THE ATTENTION OF COLLEGE SCOUTS. OR COLLEGE ATHLETES GET THE ATTENTION OF PRO. SCOUTS. THEY DO POORLY IN THEIR CLASSES, BUT TEACHERS PASS THEM, SO THEIR SCHOOL CAN GAIN NOTORIETY.THE SCOUTS GIVE THEM GIFTS AND/OR FAVORS SO THE YOUNG ATHLETE WILL LOOK AT THEIR SCHOOL OR TEAM FAVORABLY. THEN WHEN IT ALL GOES DOWN HILL….EVERYONE PLACES BLAME ON THE KID. THE KID WAS BLINDED BY THE GLEAM OF POSSIBLE RICHES AND FAME. WHO WOULDN’T BE. HE MAY HAVE KNOWN ECCEPTING GIFTS WAS WRONG…OR NOT DOING SCHOOL WORK…BUT IF EVERYONE AROUND YOU TELL YOU IT’S OK, THEN YOU ARE MOST LIABLE TO GO WITH THE FLOW. THEN WHEN THE SHIT HITS THE FAN…ALL YOUR ‘FRIENDS’ ARE GONE AND YOU ARE THE BAD GUY. BULLSHIT. WHAT ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE?
THIS ISN’T JUST A CASE ABOUT PETE ROSE….IT IS A CASE ABOUT BASEBALL AS A WHOLE AND HOW THINGS WERE RUN IN THE 70′S AND 80′S. SHIT…WE HAVE PROBLEMS IN BASEBALL RIGHT NOW THAT MAKE PETES PROBLEMS LOOK DEMURE. THESE ATHLETES THESE DAYS MAY HAVE ONLY MINIMAL TALENT…BUT MAKE A CAREER FROM THEIR SOCIAL LIVES. OR BECOME FAMOUS FROM THEIR SOCIAL LIVES. RAPES…MURDERS…DRUGS…CHEATS…THEIVES…YOU NAME IT.
PETE BELONGS IN THE HALL OF FAME. HE EARNED IT.HE DESERVES IT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST POLITICS AND BULLSHIT
We have steriods, we have steriods, we have steroids, we have steriods, we have steriods etc. etc. and then etc. THEN WE HAVE ONE CASE OF GAMBLEING.
Whatis easier for your child to access??? You have to be 18 to gamble like Pete. You can buy steroids when you are 9.
Put Pete Rose in The Hall.
I read all these entries but the bottom line is this.
1. Pete Rose earned his right to the Hall of Fame on his own with no cheating or help of performance enhancing substances.
2. Pete has admitted his sins, apologized on numerous occasions.
3. Pete is not any less credible than other flawed individuals who have a place in the hall of fame.
4. Pete is an American citizen. He has paid for his crimes and sins dearly. He has done everything asked of him to my knowledge to be reinstated back into baseball.
5. There is a conspiracy (yes I said it) against Pete by a select few who think they are so high and mighty and love the idea of playing god over a man who has done more for the game than Bud Selig and the previous commissioners and league officials combined.
6. Baseball says it appreciates it’s fans. Right, that is why the fans consistently show their support of Pete Rose yet MLB continues to look down it’s nose with a holier than thou attitude.
7. How many people have questioned Pete Rose’s on the field accomplishments and records? How many people will question the likes of Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa etc.
8. It may not be an exact “apples to apples” comparison but Michael Jordan’s gambling as a player would seem much worse than what Pete was accused of and far less than he was forced into acknowledging simply to get back to the game.
9. The world for over a decade kept saying if Pete Rose would just confess and show remorse he would be welcomed back into the game. It was written by hundreds of sports writers, stated by various league officials and low and behold he finally did exactly what was asked of him. Did the folks who finally got exactly what they asked for live up to their side of the bargain?
NO
10.Finally a final point the league and everyone especially the media spent so much time refuting Pete’s denials of his gambling activities. Has anyone, I do mean anyone ever thought that maybe the guy was innocent and his book “My prison without bars” which amounts to a signed confession is nothing more than what ordinary citizens are sometimes victimized by law enforcement… ie., being forced or coehersed into confessing to a crime they didn’t commit. So I ask you all again, has anyone even considered that Pete Rose confessed despite the possibility he may be innocent but capitulated to public pressure.
My fellow American Citizens consider this and ask yourself one central question. Can you say Pete Rose was given the benefit of the common criminal. Do you believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If you say yes, do you believe in redemption of guilty people after being penalized? Do you believe Pete Rose has the support of baseball fans in general? Do you believe Pete Rose would help the game if he were reinstated? Do you believe rule 21 is as relevant today as it was in 1919 considering salaries of the past 25 years? Do you feel even if Pete did bet on baseball he harmed the integrity of the game as much as the juiced players of today have? (So when Bonds passes Aaron will it be legitimate? Does Roger Maris still hold the single season record legitimately? How were the standing affected via the juicing of some players. Do we have world champions of the past who should not have even made it to the playoffs?
I rest my case at the feet of America and Baseball fans everywhere. I’m not a lawyer, far from it but I think I know what is right and what is wrong and all I see is corruption and
smoke and mirrors deception etc concerning the management of baseball and the Pete Rose issue in general.
Please support Pete Rose and his reinstatement.
Regards.
Barry
Who cares what anyone else who’s not a FAN SAYS!!!! PETE ROSE BROKE A SACRED RULE DISPITE HIS RECORD HE BROKE A SACRED RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A HALL OF FAMER EVERYBODY NEDS TO REALIZE THAT HE BROKE A SACRED RULE END OF STORY NO QUESTIONS ASKED HE BROKE A RULE THATS THAT NO BASEBALL FOR HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND ANOTHER THING im a pete rose fan i really am but he broke a sacred rule which means he should be banned from it and is if thats not justice than nothing is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is enraging does no one have respect for the friken game anymore? it clearly states NO GAMBLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and ted the logic is you dont break the gosh dang rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And lou who cares about that???????????????????????????????????
No one
and he lost it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
not overreacting dork!!!!!
Now I agree with wicked pete rose should not be allowed in the hall of fame because of his gambling and it is a sacred rule. But I dont agrre with wicked on how wicked lashed out. Giving this person the BTD benfiet of the doubt that this peron is a reds fan and a strong beliver in the no gambling rule. Ok I can acknowledge that rule and yes it is sacred. Now calling someone whos voicing an opinion a dork is un called for but yeah im a little upset. Calling pepole put and criticizing is not the way to go wicked so i hate when pepole do that now call me a loser wicked go ahead but just dont ever do that agian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pete rose this discussion is about a over the line fan agian giving this person the BTD. And thats all I have to say about pete rose and to wicked!!!!!!!!!!!
and also im srry about what this wicked said this person is obviously upset!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!