Posted By:
ToddLeaving aside the various remarks you made about other players and focusing on Pete Rose, how is it you can call people "ignorant" for stating Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball when in fact that is exactly why he was banned. Do you honestly think he was banned for some other reason, or that he just agreed to be "ineligble" for the hell of it?
Re-read the agreement yourself. http://www.dowdreport.com/agreement.pdf
There was a factual basis to "find" him guilty at a hearing and impose the penalty--that point is admitted in the agreement itself. He was given an extension of time to prepare his defense once confronted with the Dowd report, as MLB offered him the opportunity to vindicate himself. You're right, MLB did not have to prove Rose responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. So why didn't they go forward? 1)to save baseball and Rose the embarrassment of showing his awful and unjustified behavior; 2) to save the time and expense of a hearing that would lead to the same result that Rose agreed to anyway. I truly wish they would have gone forward with the hearing--no doubt Rose would have lied further, and his true colors would be even more apparent, if that's possible.
The notion that Rose is now lying- and did not really bet on baseball- because it is the only way to improve his enshrinement chances, borders on the absurd. Still, I wouldn't put it past him to make that the thesis of his third autobiography--"The Return of the Martyr"-- and complete the trilogy of the poor, misunderstood hero who was duped by some slick bad guys and a system that was out to get him all along. I can hardly wait.