Interesting ESPN poll regarding Pete Rose's lifetime ban

[Section103]

He signed an agreement with the commissioner accepting the lifetime ban. I dont see anything he's done to warrant overturning that agreement. Rather, if anything, I think his actions moved in the wrong directions since.

On a more nuanced view, I dont necessarily have a problem with him being in the HOF. In general, I tend to prefer players get in strictly on performance. Lay out their stories in full for the public to read. Present it to the player in advance of him going into the Hall. He can accept and go in or decline and stay out.

[CMIZ5290]

I personally think that if Rose would have immediately come clean, he would not have been banned. His dishonesty with the Commissioner was his undoing... Even though gambling is a big time violation, I honestly don't view it in the same respect as the steroid scandal. Let's be honest, how many athletes gamble? How many of us gamble? A ton.. I am not dismissing it as a serious character flaw, because it is. But his talents and records on the field had nothing to do with that. This guy loves baseball more than anyone I can think of, period.. Forget McGwire, Bonds, Clemons, etc.... I remember Bonds with the Pirates having a 30 inch waist, McGwire was skinny with the A's. Yes, they are not in the Hall and rightly so..There are guys in the Hall right now that were guilty of the same wrong doings, just different circumstances and times...Cobb, Speaker come to mind, as fantastic as they were... Rose should be part of baseball.....Just my opinion...And, he was the best competitor I ever saw....

[EvilKing00]

He should be in the hof as a player. He gambled as a manager and he should not be alloud to work in mlb again, but his efforts on the field show he is a hof player

[HRBAKER]

It's not that he gambled or other players gamble or whether we gamble Kevin, it's that he gambled on baseball. Lied and lied and lied and then as was pointed out, came "clean" to sell books. Nobody but Pete has put Pete in the place that he's in. Poor, poor Pete.

[the 'stache]

You know guys, I may be having a change of heart here, only because it seems I might have been wrong on one very important fact. It's always been my understanding that he bet on baseball, and on the Cincinnati Reds, while he was a manager, and not a player. As such, I've always made the very important distinction that Rose did nothing while he was an active player that would have warranted his inclusion on the ineligible list. Because of that, I've felt that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a player, and banned from the game (including any future employment with baseball) because of his actions as a manager.

But Rose, for the first few years he managed, was still a player. So, my feelings on this matter would change if it's shown that he gambled on baseball at all between 1984 and 1986. If he did, then I do not feel he should be removed from the ineligible list. If he only gambled when he was a manager only, then I feel he should be removed from the ineligible list so the Baseball Writers have the opportunity to consider him for Cooperstown. He should otherwise be banned from baseball.

I've been looking on Google to try and find an answer as to when he started gambling, and thus far, I haven't been able to find an answer. But I wish to amend my earlier post. If Rose gambled even once, even if it was on his last day as a player/manager, then his entire playing career is tainted, and he should never be in the Hall. But if he gambled while he was a manager only, I feel a distinction needs to be made. I don't feel that Rose the played should be penalized because of what Rose the manager did.

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a player, and banned from the game (including any future employment with baseball) because of his actions as a manager.

The quote above covers my opinion.

And Olberman made a great point last night... baseball only wants Pete Rose when it benefits baseball. When a high dollar sponsor (MasterCard) told baseball that they wanted Pete Rose to be at the appearance, baseball took the money and let him be in the ceremony.

There is a great hypocrisy going on. Rose is banned from anything to do with baseball... unless baseball can make money off him.

[packs]

As has been pointed out, Rose was both a manager and a player at the same time. His actions as a manager were the same as his actions as a player. If he should be banned for one, he should be banned for the other too.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by ZachS

The quote above covers my opinion.

And Olberman made a great point last night... baseball only wants Pete Rose when it benefits baseball. When a high dollar sponsor (MasterCard) told baseball that they wanted Pete Rose to be at the appearance, baseball took the money and let him be in the ceremony.

There is a great hypocrisy going on. Rose is banned from anything to do with baseball... unless baseball can make money off him.

+1...fantastic point, and spot on....

[Mountaineer1999]

I'm in the apparent minority here but I say he should go in. His crime is not in line with the banned players from the 19 series. If he had intentionally thrown any game then it's obvious to ban him but that's not the case. The way I understand it , he bet on the Reds to win and on other major league games.
Baseball is a game of the people, 80% fan support is an awfully big number to argue against. I don't like what Pete Rose did but I have a bigger issue with steroids and certainly with the 19th century racists that seem to get a free pass.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1...fantastic point, and spot on....

And to me largely irrelevant bc Pete continues to make money basically solely bc of his baseball career. This hasn't prevented him from earning baseball-related money.

[the 'stache]

Double post.

[brewing]

Dowd claimed he bet on baseball in 1985 & 1986, while a player/manager.

I can't find it, but there were sources that stated Rose could have had a limited ban if he would have admitted betting on baseball in 1989.

I'm fine with the ban from MLB, it's the exclusion from the Hall that I have an exception to. Of course I think the Hall is a farce and would discount it completely if there was a legitimate alternative.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brewing

Dowd claimed he bet on baseball in 1985 & 1986, while a player/manager.

I can't find it, but there were sources that stated Rose could have had a limited ban if he would have admitted betting on baseball in 1989.

I'm fine with the ban from MLB, it's the exclusion from the Hall that I have an exception to. Of course I think the Hall is a farce and would discount it completely if there was a legitimate alternative.

If a credible source is stating that Rose bet on the game while he was still playing it, then that would change my position.

It's just too bad, because he was an exceptional ballplayer.

[packs]

Rose was a compulsive gambler, which in most instances also turns you into a compulsive liar.

He claims to have never bet against the Reds. Yeah right.

He says he never did anything to attempt to manipulate the outcome of a game. Yeah right.

He says he never bet on a game as a player. Yeah right.

Even if he didn't bet on a game until he was a manager, do people not see how problematic that is? He is the manager in charge of a game. He has full ability to sub in a pitcher, take a pitcher out, sub in a pinch hitter, not play a particular player on a given day, etc. Anyone who believes him when he says he didn't bet against the Reds is fooling themselves. Since when do compulsive gamblers chasing money have ethics about what they gamble on?

There will never be any way to know what he did or didn't do to manipulate the outcome of games or whether or not he ever lost a game on purpose.

Stay out of baseball. Stay out of the HOF.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

If a credible source is stating that Rose bet on the game while he was still playing it, then that would change my position.

It's just too bad, because he was an exceptional ballplayer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

On Thursday, John Dowd, who authored the report chronicling Rose's gambling as a member of the Reds, told "Cold Pizza" on ESPN2 that Rose was mostly right when he said he bet on every Reds game.

Dowd told the program that Rose did not bet at all in the 1987 season when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched. He also said that Rose bet while he was playing.

[the 'stache]

Argh, another double post. Time to reboot, something is acting weird.