Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[egri]

Rose, I don't care one way or the other about. Bonds and Clemens, I used to be in the 'keep the juicers out' camp, but when Bud Selig went in, and Torre and Cox and other executives who profited off the juicers and/or looked the other way while it was going on, I thought it was hypocritical to let them in but keep the players out.

[Snowman]

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

[FrankWakefield]

Wow...

Set emotions and kid favorites aside... READ The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg.

All 3 had HOF careers, but it is the "other stuff" that does them in.

Clemens - NO

Bonds - Maybe, one day

Rose - As a guest, any time he buys a ticket for admission, on a day by day basis, I think they're open 363 days a year; but absolutely no induction.

Rose was a tremendous competitor, awesome ballplayer. Clemens was a dominant pitcher. Bonds had longevity as a player, and the balls he hit had their own longevity as they sailed outa the ball parks.

Read Ginsburg's book. The league's evolved away from being a drinking and gambling sport that gentile folk would avoid... it wasn't America's game back then. Educate yourselves.

[glynparson]

I’d put them all
In eventually. If you think they need to be punished and only get in once they pass I understand such thinking. But all three are all time great players and should be in the hall.o see no rational reason to keep out bonds and Clemens. Why allow lesser cheats in the hall but not those who performed the best? So it’s ok to juice if you aren’t already an all time great? What an asinine position.

[Jim65]

No for Rose, he broke the cardinal rule of baseball, he knew the rule and the punishment and bet anyway. Rose lied about it for years, then only admitted guilt to sell books.

I find it harder to exclude Clemens and Bonds, there are suspected steroid users in the HOF (Pudge, Bagwell, Piazza) but now that a known steroid user is in (David Ortiz) how do they justify keeping others out?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

It seems difficult to see why Rose would accept the ban and sign off on it, in exchange for "resolv[ing] this matter without further proceedings" unless there was something more that had not yet been shown in the Dowd report. If everything had been found at this point, he would have no reason to agree to the ban in exchange for quashing deeper investigation. A lifetime ban is the most that Major League Baseball could do to him; an effective plea deal where he gets the harshest possibly punishment in exchange for quashing further investigating has never made sense to me, unless there was something more to find. Perhaps that something more was that he had done it while a player too, which came out a few years ago. Perhaps it was something else. It seems to me that some pieces of this story remain a secret, and that the testimony of Pete Rose is completely worthless and changes with whatever benefits him most at the time the statement is given.

Pete Rose will be lucky if he's remembered as the gambling guy. Luckier than Michael Jackson anyway.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

I don't know why the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is beholden to the MLB like that. If the Hall wants a player on the ballot, they should put him on the ballot. Let the MLB start its own Hall of Fame if they want.

[todeen]

No on Rose (my #1 team is the Reds).

Yes on Bonds and Clemens.

Even among Reds fans, Rose is very polarizing. Many Reds fans very openly state that Rose is a POS human being. He had sex with a minor. Who cares about betting beyond that.

As for Bonds and Clemens, the HOF needs to create a wing for 80s/90s/00s players and put them all together. Even bad history is worthy of having its story told. The HOF needs to be very open about player's drug use, BALCO investigation, Jose Canseco's book, and the role of ownership promoting drug use for greed. In addition: yes on Palmeiro, ARod, Sosa, McGwire, and the list goes on.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[SyrNy1960]

Rose should be in the HOF for what he did as a player, period!

[biggies]

No to Rose forever. He's my 2nd all time favorite but he broke the only rule posted in every clubhouse. How close was baseball to death in 1919? Some say very. So Landis what he did and made it very clear. No gambling in or around the clubhouse. He knowingly broke that rule and not banning him from baseball including the HOF invites corruption back into the game.
As to Bonds et al, I think its just a shame. But, each individual and his individual case could be considered by the voting press. Bonds was gonna hit HOF numbers without the joice. Sosa, not.
I would think that Clemens might be the first to bust through as he has always laid low on the subject and unlike Palmiero and even McGwyre, said very little. I wish that like Petit he admitted it.

[SyrNy1960]

If Rose retired as a player from baseball, was elected to the HOF, then later managed and did what he did, he would still be in the HOF.

Rose 100% HOFer 👍🏻⚾️

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) 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 no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) 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.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

[frankbmd]

HEDs need to be marketed to the BWAA members qualified to vote.

What are HEDs you ask?

Halloffame Enhancing Drugs.

I don't waste my time arguing about who should or shouldn't be in the Hall. This forum seems to love it.

I also don't give a damn about the Oscars, the Tonys, the Emmys or the Espys.

Self-aggrandizing awards mean nothing to me. After I'm gone, if someone wants
to build a monument with my likeness cast in stone, so be it.

And I also won't care if the monument is vandalized and destroyed by the "activists du jour" at some point in the future.

[steve B]

All arguments back and forth aside...

With a team in Vegas, they may as well reinstate Rose and Jackson and put them in together.
It will be a good sign that nothing matters to MLB quite so much as money.

And once you abandon the whole "wrecking the reputation of the game" thing, I suppose steroids don't matter either as long as the jacked up players bring in enough cash.

To me a lot of the early tests were very iffy, the lab that did them was questionable, and MLB wouldn't release any info about what a test was positive for even to the players.
Even with much higher standards, Baseball was removed from the Olympics because they didn't meet WADA standards.
By those standards I doubt there would be more than a few players eligible.
And probably almost none since the late 1960's

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
...
(2) 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.
...

Sounds pretty clear to me. Rose bet on games in which he had a 'duty to perform' and so he's on the permanently ineligible list. Not much wiggle room in those rules.

Of course the HOF could discard it's rule about players on the list not being eligible for induction and leave it to the voters, but that would probably upset their relationship with MLB.

[G1911]

I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

If Rose retired as a player from baseball, was elected to the HOF, then later managed and did what he did, he would still be in the HOF.

Rose 100% HOFer 👍🏻⚾️

Very similar to what Bowie Kuhn did to Willie (1979) and Mickey (1983) in regards to their involvement with the casinos in Vegas. Willie even had to resign his position with the Mets. At the time however, the HOF didn't have a rule about inductees being on the ineligible list, so they didn't take any action. Would have been interesting if they did have the rule in place.

Peter Ueberroth later revoked their suspensions in 1984, soon after taking on the commissioner position.

[Fred]

Based on numbers? Yes, the numbers scream YES!

Now trying to get people to admit them based on character is a different question.

All three are LIARS - yes, we're probably all guilty of lying at some point in time but what these guys lied about had to do with BASEBALL.

I'm not going to get sanctimonious here, but "say it aint so" Pete, Barry and Roger.

What I liked about another player with monster numbers is he didn't lie and fessed up, and still not in the HOF. Props to McGwire for being honest. Now Palmeiro is another story - he flat out lied under oath. What a clown. He put up some seriously great offensive numbers but flat out lying to congress and the people was offensive in the wrong way.

That said, I say let all three in and then open it up to all the other PED abusers (ok Rose aint one of those guys) and enshrine them after they've gone. At least they'll know they're going in, they just won't see the induction ceremony.

I'd have been a hanging judge for sure back in the day...

Edited to add - Induct Rose now before he's dead because for some reason or other I bet he didn't bet against his teams - that would just seem to go against his grain.

[Tabe]

Gaylord Perry and David Ortiz are in. Clemens and Bonds should be.

Rose is an easy no. He broke the cardinal rule.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by G1911

I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.

So true!! Nothing else needs to be said.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Fred

Based on numbers? Yes, the numbers scream YES!

Now trying to get people to admit them based on character is a different question.

All three are LIARS - yes, we're probably all guilty of lying at some point in time but what these guys lied about had to do with BASEBALL.

I'm not going to get sanctimonious here, but "say it aint so" Pete, Barry and Roger.

What I liked about another player with monster numbers is he didn't lie and fessed up, and still not in the HOF. Props to McGwire for being honest. Now Palmeiro is another story - he flat out lied under oath. What a clown. He put up some seriously great offensive numbers but flat out lying to congress and the people was offensive in the wrong way.

That said, I say let all three in and then open it up to all the other PED abusers (ok Rose aint one of those guys) and enshrine them after they've gone. At least they'll know they're going in, they just won't see the induction ceremony.

I'd have been a hanging judge for sure back in the day...

Edited to add - Induct Rose now before he's dead because for some reason or other I bet he didn't bet against his teams - that would just seem to go against his grain.

Sorry, in 2005 in front of the US Senate, McGwire refused to answer any questions about his steroid use. Only 5 years later when he wanted to become a hitting coach did he admit guilt. His confession was not quite as cut and dry as you insinuate. He only admitted it when he had something to gain from doing it.

[steve B]

What's odd is that the hobby conveniently also forgets Rose selling multiple bats related to the same milestone hit on the way to the record. Not the major ones, but stuff like two people with bats from like hit 4187.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Sorry, in 2005 in front of the US Senate, McGwire refused to answer any questions about his steroid use. Only 5 years later when he wanted to become a hitting coach did he admit guilt. His confession was not quite as cut and dry as you insinuate. He only admitted it when he had something to gain from doing it.

and Sammy Sosa forgot how to speak english and Rafael Palmeiro sad he does not do it and then got busted weeks later.

It is all the life and entertainment of the sports.

But back to basics. To many players did it and we will never truly know how many did both pitchers and players and some guilty are going to sneak in and some innocent are going to miss out. And sadly some clean ones get over shadowed and missed there time to shine

[Centauri]

Heck no on Rose, maybe on Bonds, yes on Clemens.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Centauri

Heck no on Rose, maybe on Bonds, yes on Clemens.

Ben, I'm curious why you feel differently about Bonds and Clemens. It seems like most people are either for or against both. Their BBWAA vote totals were within a few votes of each other every year.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Pete Rose will be lucky if he's remembered as the gambling guy. Luckier than Michael Jackson anyway.

I’m not aware of any evidence supporting the allegation, and I believe the attorney accusing Rose had to settle after Rose sued him for defamation as a result.

[SyrNy1960]

Of all the roid users, I don’t get why so many people are so pro Bonds to go in the HOF. His roid use, which by the way, positive test or not, is obvious, got him the all time regular season and all time HR records.

Yes, most agree he didn’t need roids to accomplish a HOF career, but those HR records wouldn’t be his without roids. I would think most would be pissed about that; especially the all time HR record.

No matter what, My stand will always be, if you let one in, you let all in.

It was an enjoyable era, which is a part of baseball history.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

How could betting on your team to win possibly ever compromise the integrity of a game?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by todeen

No on Rose (my #1 team is the Reds).
Even among Reds fans, Rose is very polarizing. Many Reds fans very openly state that Rose is a POS human being. He had sex with a minor. Who cares about betting beyond that.

If he had sex with a minor (assuming he wasn't just a teenager too, like an 18 year old with a 16 year old), then that's something different. Ya, maybe ban him for that if true, but the betting on one's team to win? That's ridiculous. Anyone who actually cares about that isn't thinking it through.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) 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 no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) 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.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

A rule is only relevant in the purpose toward which it aims to serve. The point of the "no gambling" rule in the MLB is to prevent fixing/throwing games. Betting on yourself to win compromises nothing at all, because you are supposed to try to win. If anything, Rose should be praised for trying to win that hard. He put it all on the field. He gave that game everything he ever had. Every inning, every at-bat. Rose was a warrior.

Not being allowed to bet on yourself to win is a stupid rule.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How could betting on your team to win possibly ever compromise the integrity of a game?

If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.

[Snowman]

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

You just don't get it.

[bmattioli]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.

You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.

I think you are intentionally trying to be obtuse. Nobody is suggesting Rose threw games. Clearly you don't understand the simple fact that if he bets on his team to win one game, but not another, he has greater incentive to win the game he's betting on.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You just don't get it.

No, YOU don't get it. Not one person in here has provided one valid reason for why betting on oneself or one's team to win a game/match might compromise the integrity of that game/match in any way. And no, saying, "but what about the next game that he didn't bet on?" is not an answer.

Originally Posted by bmattioli

Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..

I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room. I know how this industry works quite well. There is ZERO chance that any bookie is going to knowingly accept a wager on a team to lose from the coach or manager of that team.

If you want to claim that he had some other secret channel through which he bet against the Reds, or had someone bet for him, then that is a separate claim. But there is zero evidence of that claim, and it would be on you to prove that it happened.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think you are intentionally trying to be obtuse. Nobody is suggesting Rose threw games. Clearly you don't understand the simple fact that if he bets on his team to win one game, but not another, he has greater incentive to win the game he's betting on.

So what? LOL. He has more incentive to win if he bets on his team to win? No shit Sherlock. What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with that. Put it all on the line. Put everything on the line. Who cares? He's trying to win. The MLB is not trying to prevent teams from trying to win games.

You're saying nothing. Literally nothing.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room.

Any everybody else is aware of the incredibly obvious - that Rose broke rule #1 which was well-defined and known to him. Whether he should be excused and forgiven for it after so long is a reasonable debate, but your love of gambling is irrelevant.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Any everybody else is aware of the incredibly obvious - that Rose broke rule #1 which was well-defined and known to him. Whether he should be excused and forgiven for it after so long is a reasonable debate, but your love of gambling is irrelevant.

Yes, we all know that the rule was well-defined and that he broke the (stupid) rule.

All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn.

Pete Rose was sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic, wanting to make a right turn.

[Kenny Cole]

As an attorney, there are lots of rules and laws on the books that I don't agree with. But, I don't get to decide whether a given law/rule is stupid or not, nor do I get to decide when its okay to violate it. If I violate a law/rule that I think is stupid and get caught, the penalty is the same as if I had violated a "good" law. That's just the way it is.

This seems pretty simple to me. Rose knew what the rule was. He chose to violate it. He got caught and got the prescribed penalty for that violation. He viewed himself as above the rules and, as a result, he screwed himself. That's the way it works, regardless of what his apologists might wish. End of story.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, we all know that the rule was well-defined and that he broke the (stupid) rule.

All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn.

Pete Rose was sitting at the red light in the middle of the night with no traffic.

This was the #1 rule in baseball. He did not violate a clubhouse rule against not cleaning up after lunch. He didn't come to a rolling stop in the Reds parking lot. He didn't make a right on red in training camp. Pete Rose broke the #1 rule in all of baseball. The rule in every clubhouse, with prior lifetime bans given for it, and the stakes very well known. It was literally the biggest no no in baseball.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Read Ginsburg's book. The league's evolved away from being a drinking and gambling sport that gentile folk would avoid... it wasn't America's game back then. Educate yourselves.

I would be more sympathetic to MLBs dudgeon about such lowbrow behavior if they weren't currently being sponsored by two sportsbooks, Fanduel and MGM Resorts.

That said, my only rigid opinion on the matter is that Rose should be kept out of the Hall solely because of what he did to Ray Fosse in the 1970 All Star Game.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, we all know that the rule was well-defined and that he broke the (stupid) rule.

All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn.

Pete Rose was sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic, wanting to make a right turn.

Good analogy. However, if a policeman is hidden in the dark of night and sees you make the turn, he will give you a ticket. You can bet on it. Rose got caught breaking a clear MLB rule. Whether you like the rule or not is irrelevant. If it said you cannot bet against your team, he would not have broken it. However, it did not say that. It said you could not gamble and that he did. The banishment is warranted. He was one of the best to ever play the game. He gave his heart and soul to the game. But, he could not control his gambling addiction and deserves the punishment he received.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If he had sex with a minor (assuming he wasn't just a teenager too, like an 18 year old with a 16 year old), then that's something different. Ya, maybe ban him for that if true, but the betting on one's team to win? That's ridiculous. Anyone who actually cares about that isn't thinking it through.

There were claims a few years ago about Rose having a relationship with a minor. He claims she was 16 and she says she was younger. From what I remember, this came out just before the Phillies were going to add him to their Wall of Fame and they ended up canceling that when the story was reported.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports....172143720.html

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

No, YOU don't get it. Not one person in here has provided one valid reason for why betting on oneself or one's team to win a game/match might compromise the integrity of that game/match in any way. And no, saying, "but what about the next game that he didn't bet on?" is not an answer.



I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room. I know how this industry works quite well. There is ZERO chance that any bookie is going to knowingly accept a wager on a team to lose from the coach or manager of that team.

If you want to claim that he had some other secret channel through which he bet against the Reds, or had someone bet for him, then that is a separate claim. But there is zero evidence of that claim, and it would be on you to prove that it happened.

As a professional gambler, if you knew Rose bet on the Reds to win 4 games in a row then didn't bet on the 5th game, would that make you more likely to bet against the Reds in that 5th game since it seems like Rose doesn't have a good feeling about the game?

[The Detroit Collector]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Good analogy. However, if a policeman is hidden in the dark of night and sees you make the turn, he will give you a ticket. You can bet on it. Rose got caught breaking a clear MLB rule. Whether you like the rule or not is irrelevant. If it said you cannot bet against your team, he would not have broken it. However, it did not say that. It said you could not gamble and that he did. The banishment is warranted. He was one of the best to ever play the game. He gave his heart and soul to the game. But, he could not control his gambling addiction and deserves the punishment he received.

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

As an attorney, there are lots of rules and laws on the books that I don't agree with. But, I don't get to decide whether a given law/rule is stupid or not, nor do I get to decide when its okay to violate it. If I violate a law/rule that I think is stupid and get caught, the penalty is the same as if I had violated a "good" law. That's just the way it is.

This seems pretty simple to me. Rose knew what the rule was. He chose to violate it. He got caught and got the prescribed penalty for that violation. He viewed himself as above the rules and, as a result, he screwed himself. That's the way it works, regardless of what his apologists might wish. End of story.

+1

[raulus]

I think the concept of betting for your team becomes a problem due to a few key facts:

1) It’s a long season. A good manager is making moves with the full season in mind, rather than just that game. Because the goal is to win more games in total, not just the ones that you bet on.

2) Moves a manager makes in one game impact the next game. And moves made in previous games impact today’s game. World Series game 7 is the exception, of course, because there’s no tomorrow, and you throw everything you’ve got in an attempt to win. Plus winning game 7 is worth other potential risks that a player might run, like getting injured, or aggravating an existing injury by playing whilst less than 100%.

3) We’re assuming he only bet on some games, and not on all of them. If he bet on all of them, or even almost all of them, then point #1 above is likely no longer relevant.

Since we’re having fun here, let’s dig into an example. Let’s say that Petey bets on the game 5 days from now. Maybe the manager has today’s starter skip his start to rest him up a little more. Or maybe gives him an early hook to avoid running up his pitch count and keep him fresh.

Then in the 2-3 games before the game in question, the manager selectively uses his relievers, deploying them in a fashion to make sure that the best relievers are fresh for the important game, rather than deploying them to win the most games overall.

For added effect, maybe the manager strategically rests some position players to keep them fresh for the important game, and lets the scrubs play more in the other games. You could probably go on here, maybe choosing to keep the other team from seeing some plays like a hit and run or a straight steal or even a bunt against the shift as a means of making it a more effective sneak attack when the important game comes along. Maybe the manager will choose to use a pinch hitter in an odd spot, just to get the hitter an extra look at a reliever that he might face in a critical spot in that future game.

Naturally, if you let your mind wander for long enough, it’s not hard to imagine a long list of moves that a manager could make to improve the odds of winning one game at the expense of other games. Even in relatively mild situations, it’s easy to imagine that 1-2 games around the game in question could be impacted. And in really extreme cases, it could multiply quickly, particularly if a manager ends up pushing a player and he gets hurt, thereby reducing the team’s chances while that player is out.

So particularly for a manager, unless they’re betting on every game, there’s the real possibility that managing like it’s WS game 7 for the games you bet on will adversely impact other games for your team.

[darwinbulldog]

From the Philadelphia Inquirer article:

"The biggest reason for the uproar over Rose’s return to the field in Philadelphia had less to do with his ban for gambling and more to do with the accusations of statutory rape that surfaced as part of testimony in federal court in 2017. That testimony only surfaced because Rose had filed a defamation suit against Dowd in 2015 following an interview on WCHE-AM (1520) in West Chester in which Dowd said a former associate of Rose told him that Rose had sex with underage girls “ages 12 to 14.”

“Michael Bertolini, you know, told us that he not only ran bets but he ran young girls for him down at spring training, ages 12 to 14,” Dowd said. “Isn’t that lovely? So that’s statutory rape every time you do that.”

Rose denied the allegations, adding that Dowd’s remarks were “entirely false in every respect.”

But as part of the defamation suit that followed against Dowd, new testimony suggested that Rose had a years-long relationship with an underage girl in Cincinnati during the 1970s after first meeting in 1973.

“Sometime after that, Pete Rose and I began meeting at a house in Cincinnati,” the woman said in a statement first obtained by ESPN. “It was at that house where, before my 16th birthday, Pete Rose began a sexual relationship with me. This sexual relationship lasted for several years. Pete Rose also met me in locations outside of Ohio where we had sex.”

Rose admitted in court filings that he had sex with the woman in question but believed that she was 16 at the time their relationship began “sometime in 1975,” when Rose was 34 years old and married with two children.

Because of the statute of limitations, Rose could not be charged with a crime."