Why Rose should be banned

hawkeye171 · Sep 20, 2005

ESPN has just aired the top 5 reasons why you can't blame baseball for banning
Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame:

1) Rose lied about betting on baseball
2) The Dowd report-detailing his gambling
3) Bart G. the commissioner at the time
4) The Hall of Fame itself-the Hall makes it's rules
5) Shoeless Joe Jackson-he's not in for some of the similar reasons.

I still think he should be in.

VaultedTreehouse · Sep 20, 2005

Out. No way. That's the rule.

blueedwards · Sep 20, 2005

banned from the game...yes

banned from the hall...no

dmmd98 · Sep 20, 2005

He'll get in after he is dead

hawkeye171 · Sep 20, 2005

I'm not a Rose fan, but did he ever bet AGAINST the Reds? That's never been proven. On another note, ESPN is now airing why you can't blame Steve Bartman for costing the Cubs in the '03 playoffs.

sherman · Sep 20, 2005

hawkeye171 said:
I'm not a Rose fan, but did he ever bet AGAINST the Reds? That's never been proven. On another note, ESPN is now airing why you can't blame Steve Bartman for costing the Cubs in the '03 playoffs.

i'm sure this has been taked about a million times here, but it doesn't matter if he didn't bet AGAINST his team, betting FOR them can be just as destructive....

dmmd98 · Sep 20, 2005

You can agrue that the games he didn't bet on the Reds that he in fact was betting against them.

winkyduck · Sep 20, 2005

dmmd98 said:
He'll get in after he is dead

NO HE WON'T

after this season the ONLY way he can get in is thru the Veteran's Committee and he has as much chance of getting in as i do

and he does NOT belong in the Hall. i have been to many MLB clubhouses before and on the door outside the of it is a sign so big Stevei Wonder can see it saying "NO GAMBLING"

He violated this and needs to be punished. for those who say "well he only bet on his team to win" i agree - he did. but what happened on days he did NOT bet ON the reds. to me that is the same as betting AGAINST them or else he would have bet on them and by not betting on them to win he is saying they will lose that day

sorry Pete - NO HOF for you - EVER

trytrytry · Sep 20, 2005

i would never visit Cooperstown without Pete Rose in it.

hawkeye171 · Sep 20, 2005

To say if he wasn't betting on the Reds he was betting against them is ridiculous. I'm not saying Pete Rose is a great person. I don't think he is, but I don't buy those arguments. Did Rose use enhancement drugs? No. Did he cheat while playing? No. The Hall may have to look at some tough questions when players like Mark M., Sammy S., Raphy P., and Barry B. come up for election.

dmmd98 · Sep 20, 2005

It's interesting how you jump on my line when I said he'll get in after he is dead but the line which you repeated where I said the days he didn't bet on the reds he is kinda betting against them gets no agreement from you. However I will take into account the short turnaround time between that post and your long post.

Just to counter point cause i'm bored. In the veteran's committe Pete Rose has five members who defend him and support him being in the hall of fame (Those being Joe Morgan, Johhny Bench, Mike Schmidt, Sparky Anderson, Marty Brennaman) The people who are dead set against him even being considered for the hall are the old timers who quite frankly won't be around in 20 years to voice there opinion so I think Pete has a chance if Morgan, Bench, Schmidt can convince some of the fence sitters to look at Pete's stats.

I don't even like Pete Rose so that is all im going to waste talking about the jerk however he was cool at Wrestlemaina.

winkyduck · Sep 20, 2005

hawkeye171 said:
To say if he wasn't betting on the Reds he was betting against them is ridiculous.

NO IT IS NOT!

say i am pete rose and i bet on the reds today. come T8 (say we are home team) in a 1-run game i might bring in my closer to try and get out of that inning and the next one instead of bringing in someone else. then tomorrow - knowing i won't have my closer i don't ebt on my team because i am now shorthanded pitching wise

NOT betting ON the reds is most definitely the same thing as betting against them - i am just not choosing to bet against them because what little morals i have are coming thru

barman0506 · Sep 21, 2005

By placing bets on MLB games, Rose tampered with the very fabric of The Great Game of Baseball.

(Disclosure - I wore #14 on my own baseball uniforms from age 10-25 as a direct hat tip to Charlie Hustle...so I have full respect for his accomplishments on the field. But I could never support his being placed in the Hall of Fame)

weeman719 · Sep 21, 2005

Yea. Betting on your own team is pretty lame.

TwoCard · Sep 21, 2005

barman0506 said:
By placing bets on MLB games, Rose tampered with the very fabric of The Great Game of Baseball.

Won't to bet any of the potential HOF steroid users get banned ?
Same game - different fabric ??

DrunkenHorseplayer · Sep 21, 2005

If you believe that Rose not betting on his team constituted betting against them then you have to believe that when Keith Hernandez and others took cocaine they were in effect throwing the game. I don't see any of those bozos being banned; they got a couple years probation and that was it. Rose was right when he said "If you're going to either gamble or take drugs, take drugs."

winkyduck · Sep 21, 2005

Belch One said:
If you believe that Rose not betting on his team constituted betting against them then you have to believe that when Keith Hernandez and others took cocaine they were in effect throwing the game. I don't see any of those bozos being banned; they got a couple years probation and that was it. Rose was right when he said "If you're going to either gamble or take drugs, take drugs."

rose only bet on his team to win - right? well - if he didn't bet ON the reds in a game - that meant he didn't think they were going to win - or else he would have bet ON them. by NOT betting ON them to win - he was saying, "I don't think we are going to win today because if i thought we were i would bet ON us." to me - and many others - not betting ON the reds to win is the same as betting against them to win

i am a denver broncos' fan. say every game we play this year is "Pick" meaning the SU winner is also the ATS winner. if i bet ON denver that means i think they will win. if i DON'T bet on denver that means i either think we will lose - or the chances are we could lose - so i won't bet ON them today. in this case - not betting ON denver is the same as me saying " we could/might/will lose this game so i won't bet ON us because i don't want to lose my bet"

gopherbob · Sep 21, 2005

i may be mistaken, but wasn't rose's gambling brought to light because he tried
to stiff his bookie ?

mson · Sep 21, 2005

Sick of this topic but here we go.

People should be forgiven, especially low IQ people like Pete Rose
He has paid his debt
He belongs in the Hall of Fame
If a team would like to hire him they should be allowed

That said:

Pete Rose will always be an idiot to me
Pete Rose will always be a liar to me
Pete Rose will always be a whore of his own acheivements
Pete Rose is a scumbag

tooran · Sep 21, 2005

After 14 years of growing fan support for the guy, he sells out (again) and writes that book last year, in which he purports to admit to betting on baseball.
There, I admitted it, can I get into the Hall now?

No, chump, you may not. Talk about a little kid who apologizes while having no idea what he is apologizing for.

Bob Costas always says: "Do I think Rose should go into the Hall? Well, someone got those 4,256 hits."

Big deal. The Hall of Fame rules specifically point to the character and integrity of a candidate. Not to mention the MLB rules:

MAJOR LEAGUE RULES

Rule 21
MISCONDUCT
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

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.

Here is Rule 5, Hall of Fame voting criteria: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team on which the player played."

Based on his "integrity" and "character", Rose has no business in the Hall. Sure, you might say, neither does Cobb, B.Bonds, etc. That's a different issue and a different thread. Rose is a disgrace and an idiot, and his career stats are not good enough to override his lousy character. He is not HOF material, IMHO.