It is Baseball's fault (Pete Rose)

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Rose is the man with the disease. Punishment of a person for being sick is wrong. Many employers assist persons with the disease of harmful addictions by means including diagnosis, treatment and support. Baseball agrees with this approach, as evidenced by their actions with Strawberry and others.

Admittedly, drug addiction is simpler to diagnose than gambling is. However, the following guidelines represent the current thinking regarding diagnosis of gambling addiction:

(1) you have "preoccupation with gambling; (2) a need to increase the excitement produced by gambling; (3) restlessness or irritability when unable to gamble; (4) repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling; (5) gambling in an effort to get back money lost during gambling on a previous day; (6) gambling in an effort to escape" an unpleasant "mood; (7) lying to cover up gambling; (8) jeopardizing a significant job, relationship, or educational opportunity by gambling (9) engaging in illegal activity to finance gambling; and (10) going to someone else to relieve a desperate financial situation produced by gambling. An individual who fulfills five out of the ten criteria is diagnosed as a pathological gambler. Problem gamblers would satisfy only two, three, or four of these criteria".

I wonder how many of us feel that Rose never exhibited five or more of these characteristics.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

but blatant lying.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Lying is characteristic #7.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

Gilbert, I've never heard anyone give that side before. It's a very gopod point.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

lying about gambling is bad. lying about drugs, cheating, killing your father, beating a blind man with your shoe or blatant racism is however perfectly acceptablt according to baseball rules.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

I always thought that MLB wanted Rose to admit his wrong doing and take responsibility for his actions. I guess the "death nail" was Bart Giamatti's untimely passing while he was in the midst of dealing with Rose. I think that people believe that Bart's death was a direct result of his having to make a very unpopular decision by kicking Rose out of baseball and making him HOF ineligible.

And remember, people don't forgive lying too easily - OK, now I have to say this: How many people in their right mind would pay thousands of dollars for a tube of flax seed oil.... don't forget "the clear and the cream"...

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

My last post was deleted because I used Bush as an example.

As I was saying, Pete Rose knew he did wrong. Did the one thing Baseball forbid. To say it's a disease, is wrong. Kinda like if a Corrections Office blamed the prisoners for him dealing drugs and robbing banks. You have to take responsibility for what you do.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I personally believe Rose should be in the HOF because of his on field accomplishments. However, to excuse his activities on the grounds of a "disease" is bogus sentimentality in my opinion. People are "addicted" to the nicotine in cigarettes, but millions have sought help and quit, or found the strength to quit on their own. Many alcoholics choose to confront their illness and recover. Pete Rose had free will. I do not believe he was insane, or mentally incompetent. I do not excuse him one bit.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

In my opinion Rose could possibly be allowed back into baseball if doing the following...

1. Completely quit gambling and any involvement with gambling businesses. He is now heavily involved in horse racing both as an owner and gambler.
2. Get involved and stay involved in a gambling recovery program such as something religious based, Gamblers Anonymous, or a psychiatric run gambling treatment center.
3. Become an anti-gambling advocate. Basically helping people by stating, "If I can do it then you can do it."

Unless doing all of these three things, he has no chance of being allowed back in baseball. Even if doing these three things, he still might not get back in, but at least he would have a chance.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Rose doesn't get it and may never get it. Until then, he will remain on the outside looking in. And after the stunt he pulled releasing a book trying to overshadow the HOF ceremonies, I have no respect left for him. And once thought he should be let in. He has proven it's all about Pete and that rules don't apply to him. With his gambling and the book release, he proven time and again that he truely has no respect for the game. Joe Jackson has more right to be reinstated than Rose.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Even assuming that one buys the addiction/disease theory of gambling (I don't, BTW), it does not excuse lawbreaking. The jails are full of druggies rotting away for decades. In baseball terms, Rose has to be punished for breaking the #1 law of the sport. Even if Rose was compelled to gamble, he did not have to gamble on baseball; he had a million other ways to feed his monkey (yes, I have been reading Naked Lunch). He bet on baseball because he thought he had an edge to bet on baseball.

I'd keep him ineligible until the year he dies (a true lifetime ban), then let the members of the HOF decide whether to let him in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

You have to see the irony in baseball and what it forgives:

Steve Howe and his 7 suspensions and subsequent returns to baseball for drug abuse.


June 24, 1992: Yankees P Steve Howe is permanently banned from baseball by Commissioner Fay Vincent after having pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempting to purchase a gram of cocaine. It is Howe's 7th ban from the game, as he becomes the 1st player ever permanently banned from baseball because of drugs.

November 12, 1992: Arbitrator George Nicolau overturns the suspension of Yankees P Steve Howe for being too severe. The pitcher is resigned by the Yankees.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

should be in the HOF based on his on field accomplishments, just like Cobb is not OUT of there because he killed a man or because he was a blatant Racist. And just like McGwire and Bonds WILL be there based on their on field accomplishments, EVEN IF they were accomplished while on the juice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert A

Gilbert!
First of all, I like Rose (as a player).
But, he wasn't just gambling, he was gambling on his own team.
That...is called CHEATING. I think baseball is very forgiving to players with addiction problems. If they weren't, they would have to change the rules to allow 7 or 8 people on the field cuz they wouldn't have enough players.
robert a

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Tom, the BIG difference betweence Rose and the other players you mentioned is that they didn't do things that would bring serious questions to the integrity of the game (except Cobb. How he and Speaker got off so light is beyond me). So what if he only bet on his team to win. He still bet on his team. And if players and managers are betting on their team, then baseball becomes no better than WWE. It becomes nothing more than "sports entertainment".

I used to buy into the "it's what he did on the field arguement", but realize the folly of my ways because his other on field actions include betting on his team. Sorry, but that's an automatic ouster. I don't care how good you are.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

An alcoholic, drug addict, gambler or other addict cannot recover if he is sheltered from taking responsibility for what his addictive behavior put himself and/or others into. If you consider it a disease and the person doesn't have full responsibility for his actions, you are still doing the addict no good by fixing all the messes he gets into.

Whether the MLB penalty is fair or unfair, this is the situation that Rose's gambling got himself into. Life is hard for all addicts.

[Archive]

Posted By: mike

imo, first, should Rose be reinstated? second, if reinstated should he be honored?

wrt the 2nd point, the baseball writers are instructed to consider:
"5. Voting — 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."

see: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I agree that Pete Rose is a gambling adict, but that does not excuse his responsibility for his behavior; it merely explains it. He has shown no remorse or publically declared that he has attempted to change his behavior or worked to heal his disease. If a drug addict has no intentions of stopping use of drugs, it can certainly be explained by his disease, but it does not excuse his behavior. Pete Rose does not seeem to show any remorse. The only half-hearted apology he made is that he is sorry people are so upset by his actions. So if we weren't upset, there would be no problem? HE DOES NOT GET IT! He seems almost constitutionally incapapble of being honest. But that does not mean Baseball owes him anything.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

A cigarette smoker rationalizes that not all smokers are affected; maybe they will be lucky. An alcoholic and others are similarly in denial.

It is one of the symptoms of the disease.

For a long time I felt that those who had a problem (which I perceived to be self-inflicted) were worthy of no sympathy nor consideration from me. Now however, after looking at related diseases I am of the opinion that in many cases there exists a mental disorder which compells a person to behave in a manner which anyone would agree is not in the best interests of the addicted individual.

Such maladies include bolemia, alcoholism, self-mutilation, beastiality, gambling, excessive coffee drinking, pediophilia, smoking, drug addiction and many others ranging from the common to the abhorrent.

Some feel that it is an employers responsibility to dignose and help correct the employee's mental problem, where possible, since the sick employee is powerless to evaluate his behavior accurately.

I contend that Rose's employer did nothing to help in the diagnosis nor correction of his problem. MLB imposed sanctions on this player once his playing career was over. That is an example of irresponsible performance IMHO.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Rose was player/manager 1984-86, then managed 1987-89. OK, I did not read the mlb report on Rose by the commission, but I gather he admitted gambling on the reds while he was their manager. For or against the spread?

If we consider Rose as a player only, did he gamble on baseball while a player?

I think it makes a difference in terms of his legacy. I admired his play in the field.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

BOO!

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Pete Rose gambles but it is somehow his EMPLOYER's fault for failing to "diagnose" him? Is there no individual responsibility in your world Gilbert? For that matter is a superstar getting paid tons of money really analagous to an "employee" to whom some paternalistic duty is owed? Of course, if MLB or the Reds had TRIED to intervene, and Gilbert of course assumes they KNEW he had a problem which I was not aware of, something tells me the players' union would have told them to shove it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Gee PASJD, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I did not mean to infer that it is the employer's fault that their employee has a problem. I intended to state that I believe that the employer shares responsibility with family members and in some cases others, to diagnose that a problem exists. Further, it is the employer's responsibility (and good business judgement) to require treatment for all problems which may affect their profitability and/or credibility. That MLB provides support for the sick employee during this period enhances their perception in the public's eyes.

Additionally, I certainly agree that the sick individual contributes significantly to the onset of his illness and continues to do so throughout its term; in this instance.

At no time did I anticipate that the words which I typed could be construed as an accusation that MLB was aware of Rose's problem. My accusation is that they were not, but should have been. There certainly is sufficient money involved to justify additional scrutiny of baseball players, managers and others.

If the Players Union took a "shove it" stance regarding the well being of a dues paying member, that posture would be unique among USA unions.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Gilbert maybe I misunderstood you but the title of your thread is "It is baseball's fault." That suggested to me, oddly enough, that you were blaming baseball and saying Rose was "sick" and therefore not culpable. On what basis do you say baseball "should have known" about Rose's problem? As for the union, I think you are being naive, they have resisted drug testing for years, although surely you would agree that if a player has a drug problem it is in his interest to be treated.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

Maybe the prisons should take responsibity for the prisoners. They certainly share responbility for the murderers and rapists. Certainly, these people don't do these things because they want to. The prisons should also acknowledge that they have problems and should treat them and rehabilitate them. Not!

Society doesn't care for people who choose to do wrong. Even if they have a mental illness, they're still locked up.

Pete Rose got away with murder, as far as I'm concerned.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

PASJD: Some feel that drug testing is invasive. I agree with this assessment.

I believe that it is baseball's fault that they do not consistently require their personnel behave in accordance with existing laws. Illegal gambling should not be ok, and there should be a system in place to diagnose that behavior.

Baseball focuses on some issues and ignores others. Steroids is one example of an issue that is of current importance to MLB. And they are addressing that concern. Drug addiction diagnosis and treatment is similarly under present procedural development by baseball.

Where the illegal activity includes the necessity of treatment for the individual involved, that treatment should be manditory. If progress is not noted, then the employee should undergo full time treatment until he can return to work.

Throughout baseball history, alcoholism has been tolerated. But alcoholism is legal.

I think that a prolonged concerted thrust which adresses illegal activities of baseball personnel is needed. Any union which takes a stance against insuring legal behavior is not welcome in this country IMO. And I believe that any union who takes a stance against the well being of its dues paying members is unique in the USA.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

I have little sympathy for Pete Rose. It isn't baseball's fault that Rose bet on baseball, it is Pete Rose's fault that he bet on baseball. Nor is it baseball's fault that Pete Rose lied about betting on baseball for 15 years or so; again, that would be something that must be placed at Pete's feet.

While I am generally not a huge fan of the Comissioner, the owners, or baseball management (nor of the Player's Union for that matter), in this case I agree 100% with the decision to ban Rose and hope that he is never reinstated during his lifetime. If you want to say he's sick, fine. Get him treatment and cure him. Baseball can even forgive him for being a scumbag if it wants to.

However, forgiving Rose for being the POS he is doesn't also have to mean that he needs to be reinstated or elected to the HOF. In that regard, I can admire the way he played on the field without admiring him and without feeling that his exclusion from the HOF is anything other than completely justified.

Pete Rose is all about Pete Rose, plain and simple. He is the only thing he cares about. Rose spat on the game that he purported to love and he can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I certainly agree with all of that, Kenny. Well maybe not the hell part, after all he really did not do anything to me. He simply did not live up to all I had hoped him to be.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Being compasionate/helpful/offering treatment and holding the addict responsible for rules/laws are not at odds with each other. In fact, they are completely compatable if you are trying to help the addict.

MLB had a reasonable, long standing and clearly communicated set of rules about gambling (the rules were posted in every lockerroom). Rose broke them .... There are no exceptions in drinking and driving laws that allows one to skip all penalties if he is an alcoholic, and there are no rules in MLB that allow you to bet on MLB baseball if you are a gambling addict.

Should you offer the addict help, compassion, kindness and understanding? Yes.
Should the addict be held responsible for the rules they broke? Yes.

It's not an either/or situation. It's a both/and.

I'm not a Rose fan, but my personal feeling is that once he has genuinely addressed his gambling and lying problems, the ban should be lifted. I'm sure Selig himself happy to see Rose tackle his ongoing troubles.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

Despite what some sabrites like to manipulate stats to make up, is what also kept him out of the HOF

Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The comparison of Rose's penalty to the MLB's drug penalties is bad.

Rose was banned not because he was a gambling addict, but because he bet on baseball. If a baseball player was undergoing MLB's treatment/penalty plan for cocaine addiction and bet on his own team while under the influence, he would be banned for life for betting on baseball

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Gilbert, you want baseball to protect its employees from drug problems, but testing is too invasive. What should they do, have the boys fill out a questionnaire? You are trying to have it both ways, I think.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

David,

"If a baseball player was undergoing MLB's treatment/penalty plan for cocaine addiction and bet on his own team while under the influence, he would be banned for life for betting on baseball"

Is this right? What if he was high on drugs when he bet on baseball? Wouldn't the impaired judgement be caused by the substance abuse? I think someone could very well challenge the ruling based on that circumstance.

I'm just kidding and being a bit facetious. You are absolutely correct, Rose was banned for BETTING ON BASEBALL, not because he was a gambler (which ultimately led him to bet on baseball). Ok, so does that mean that his gambling addiction caused him to bet on baseball which would mean that his will was conquered by the gambling disease which might make him eligible to challenge this whole mess by pleaing stupidity?

Rose - Great baseball sense and skills but a lack of common sense and self control. You have to figure if they can lift the ban on Rose then they can do the same for Shoeless Joe.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

What if the purveyors of some memorabilia and cards are "compulsive" liars? Should we forgive them? They couldn't help it after all, so why should they be held accountable?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It's a non issue as far as applying the law goes. Drinking and driving laws say you can't drink and drive. Irrelevant to the reasonable and inteligent debates about alcoholism being a disease and what responsiblity the alcoholic takes, no one here wants the laws overhauled so alcoholics can drink and drive.

If the argument is that gambling addiction is a disease and the addict is not in full control of himself, that's fine. But a MLB manager or player is still not allowed to bet on baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: F. Scott

Rogers Hornsby was fired from the Chicago Cubs due, in large part, to his lifelong compulsion with gamnbling? And he is now in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Both Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were suspended for a year for Gambling. Hornung is now in the NFL Hall of Fame.

I don't consider the mere act of gambling as "cheating." There is no evidence that Pete Rose ever bet the Reds to lose or did anything to manipulate the game in his favor because of his gambling habit. I think he has done his time and should be reinstated. Granted, my opinion may be a little biased since I live in Las Vegas where sports betting is the norm rather than an abnormality. BTW, there is no guarantee that he will be elected even after reinstatement (although, based on the numbers, it would be impossible not to elect him). Just my $0.02.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

When I grew up, I was taught right from wrong. I also use to collect baseball cards as a kid, and was thrilled when I got Pete Rose cards. Charlie Hussle, that's what they use to say.

Now I hate Pete Rose. There can't be an excuse for everything. Is there is no more right or wrong? What is it that we're trying to teach the kids today, if everything can be explained away with an excuse? Even if Pete Rose confessed, converted, etc., it would only be for a monetary reason. Sorry Charlie.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Gilbert, your rationale is exactly what is draggin this country down, blame someone or something else for your problems. Don't bother to take responsiblity for your mistakes when you can lay the blame elsewhere. Perfect example is the lady that sued McDonalds for serving coffee that was too hot after she spilled it on her lap while driving her car. How she won this case is beyond me and proof of what goes on in general in our society.

The day everyone in this country starts taking responsiblity for their actions is the day this country get headed back in the right direction.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

McDonald's should have lost that case for a myriad of reasons. The only sad part about that case is that the judge remitted a large part of the verdict and it ended up being settled for FAR less than the jury, who had a hell of a lot more information about the facts than you do, thought was appropriate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

This message has been edited by davidcycleback on Jan 20, 2005 5:14 AM
This message has been edited by davidcycleback on Jan 20, 2005 5:07 AM
This message has been edited by davidcycleback on Jan 20, 2005 4:58 AM
This message has been edited by davidcycleback on Jan 20, 2005 5:09 PM
This message has been edited by davidcycleback on Jan 20, 2005 5:50 PM

David,
Have you given re Hab a thought?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Jay, PASJD, and others: you are correct. Rose is the ultimate responsible party for all of his actions. That baseball does not have programs in place to diagnose the problems of their employees is a judgement call that the owners are hopefully better equipped to make than I am.

But in my opinion, since baseball has chosen to turn their back to the developing problems of its employees, they are not behaving responsibly.

Although I do not endorse drunk driving, I also do not believe that the proper way to address a problem typically caused by an addiction is to make the penalties stiffer. The addict will accept any potential penalty, I think. Preventing a drunk driver from driving until he is cured, preventing a gambler from playing baseball until he is cured, etc. are desperate, necessary actions. These actions are necessary once the progress of the disease has reached its advanced stages (that stage at which its existence is obvious to a casual observer).

The key of course is to correct the progress of the disease before it reaches its final stages. An addict's family is often aware of a developing problem. But somewhat powerless to enforce corrective action. An employer seems able to have comparitively stronger influence on a budding addict. And of course, our legal system certainly has the power to require corrective action, but that has potential permanent impact on the individual.

PASJD, in answer to your inquiry: "Gilbert, you want baseball to protect its employees from drug problems, but testing is too invasive. What should they do, have the boys fill out a questionnaire? You are trying to have it both ways, I think."

I agree. I do not have the answer. I am not alone in this. Everything stated in this post and in my posts above represents the opinion of a person with no expertise in the area being discussed. But this ignorance changes nothing. I still believe what I have stated.

This post and the one on Jackson would be more appropriately entitled "It is baseball's fault too"

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Gilbert I hear you on drug testing, to an extent it is an invasion of individual privacy, but I think the pervasiveness and seriousness of the problem (the stuff is dangerous, it is setting a bad example for young people, etc.) requires drastic solutions and I don't see any way other than mandatory testing and suspensions to control it at this point. Of course education and rehabilitation would be preferable but this is not your ordinary employer employee situation, you are dealing with a bunch of millionaires.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

A few points...

Rose is unlike almost all addicted gamblers in that fortunately for him he has access to constant amounts of money. Any time he needs an extra $25,000 or so he can just do an autograph show, write a book, get paid for an "exclusive" interview, or something else. Unfortunately most other addicted gamblers cannot do things like that. So Rose does not totally feel the consequences of the disease of gambling like most other addicted gamblers do.

One day I believe all major professional sports teams will have mandatory polygraph testing, especially in regards to gambling. The mandatory polygraph testing will have a preventative effect similar to how mandatory drug testing can prevent someone from doing drugs knowing that they'll be tested for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Manditory drug testing and spot checks are difficult for some people to accept. However, if you enhance their insurance policy (which requires a minor physical exam) you may find more acceptance.

I don't know how often you can come up with drug testing excuses. But it may seem reasonable to some to require a drug test everytime an employee misses a day from work.

A polygraph is an interesting option which I hadn't considered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

A polygraph test? Why not sodium pentathol?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Yeah. Or a gun to your temple with your hand on the Bible. Ooops, that is: Bible or equavalent. (But the gun is not potentially offensive).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Kenny, I dunno, blame me for having too much common sense, but I have a really hard time seeing how someone who served a cup of coffee is responsible for someone getting burned when put the stuff between their legs. Coffee is hot. If you are stupid enough to put it between your legs, then you deserve to get burned. I personally don't care what the law says, this is one of those cases where common sense should tell you that you don't put hot things between your legs, or anywhere else that it might easily burn you.

One of the most rediculous cases I remember while being in CA was a guy who bought a late 60s muscle car. He wrecled it and hurt himself badly shortly after buying it. He sued the car dealer saying that the dealer should have made sure that he qualified to drive a car like that. Just another case where the law is wrong and gives people the oppurtunity to not take responisblity for their own stupidity.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Jay, the problem seems to be that you know next to nothing about what really happened in the McDonald's case, and the little that you think you know is wrong. Yes, coffee is hot. However, restaurants don't generally serve at temperatures that are almost boiling. Nor do most restaurants have a track record of close to 700 previous people having been scalded and/or having suffered 3rd degree burns due to the temperature at which they serve their coffee. In fact, had McDonalds served its coffee at normal restaurant temperatures (about 30-40 degrees less than McDonalds USED to serve its coffee - at least the suit was successful in that regard), the plaintiff in the McDonald's case wouldn't have suffered third degree burns and had to spend 8 days in the hospital.

BTW, how many restaurants do you know who will admit their coffee is so hot that it isn't fit for human consumption when served? McDonalds did. Despite that, McDonalds also said that it had no plans to lower the temperature. Go look up the actual facts of the case and then come back and talk to me. Until then, further discussion is a waste of both our times.

Anyway, back to baseball and cards. At least we seem to have some agreement on Rose. That's something

Kenny

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

<<< A polygraph test? Why not sodium pentathol? >>>

I understand your comment here but if you think there can't ever be another Black Sox type scandal - then that is being very naive. Especially with gambling rampantly growing throughout society. What if the Cincinnati Reds would have gotten into the World Series with gambling addict Pete Rose as the manager?

The best way to prevent another scandal is to have mandatory polygraph testing. And of course the testing probably will never occur until after a major gambling scandal happens. But the sports league that gets hit with a fixed World Series, fixed Super Bowl, etc., will then definitely institute mandatory polygraph testing. It's a shame that such a simple, effective measure such as this can't be put in place beforehand.