Rose requests to be reinstated

[begsu1013]

i am heavily vested in rose both in heart and in cards (#3 basic topps registry set).

with that being said, i'm torn. i'd love to see him get in but the controversy of whether he should or not keeps him fresh in the minds every year and card prices strong.

there is no perfect answer.

[Bigdaddy]

As a lifelong Reds fan, he was one of my favorite players (along with J Bench). However, he broke the #1 rule in the game and the punishment for that is banishment for life. He agreed to that, lied about betting on the Reds to Roger Kahn in his book on Pete, and now wants in the Hall. Sorry Pete, you were a great player, and I'm glad you were on the Reds and not the Dodgers or Yankees, but the only way you get in is to buy a ticket, just like me.

It would be interesting to see what the voters would say if he was reinstated by the commish - all that does is put his name on the ballot. I have a feeling that he would not get the votes.

[vthobby]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

As a lifelong Reds fan, he was one of my favorite players (along with J Bench). However, he broke the #1 rule in the game and the punishment for that is banishment for life. He agreed to that, lied about betting on the Reds to Roger Kahn in his book on Pete, and now wants in the Hall. Sorry Pete, you were a great player, and I'm glad you were on the Reds and not the Dodgers or Yankees, but the only way you get in is to buy a ticket, just like me.

It would be interesting to see what the voters would say if he was reinstated by the commish - all that does is put his name on the ballot. I have a feeling that he would not get the votes.

He may have to buy a ticket like you for now but he still has 4,256 more major league hits than me and you combined! He was a machine. I'm a Red Sox fan and I grew up loving Pete Rose and the way he played the game. He bled Red and was lightning in a bottle. He will be getting in the Hall for Free at some point in the next 5 years. Bank on it!

Peace, Mike

[begsu1013]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

He may have to buy a ticket like you for now but he still has 4,256 more major league hits than me and you combined! He was a machine. I'm a Red Sox fan and I grew up loving Pete Rose and the way he played the game. He bled Red and was lightning in a bottle. He will be getting in the Hall for Free at some point in the next 5 years. Bank on it!

Peace, Mike

mike,

I have the perfect card for you then! a 71 rose w/ the red sox!!!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

mike,

I have the perfect card for you then! a 71 rose w/ the red sox!!!

I had that card (the normal one), but realized that Rose was a turd long before he bet on baseball. I hung that Rose card on my dartboard along with the common dups.

Rose is exactly where he should be. As others have said, he'll never get voted into the HOF even if he is reinstated.

[nolemmings]

I truly don't mean to be crass, but wouldn't this same thinking apply to the Black Sox? Landis made an example of them and basically banned them after the fact (regardless of their varying levels of guilt). Just curious...

I don't follow this at all. Landis investigated while the allegations of fixing were still fresh, not "after the fact". He was hired because of the Black Sox scandal. Moreover, players had been banned before the Black Sox scandal---banned, not suspended. The Black Sox can maybe argue they were acquitted and that ought to count for something (an unimpressive argument IMO) or that enforcement was spotty, but the concerns that baseball had with gambling were long-established and serious before that scandal. It was prominently displayed that no betting was allowed. They can hardly complain they had no idea what they were getting into as far as punishment was concerned.
Check the background on these cards: --"No.... Betting"


As for Rose, the warning about being permanently banned was posted in the clubhouse of every professional team for whom he ever played. That punishment is hardly ex post facto, which if course is a criminal law precept that has marginal if any application to entry into a place of honor. The theory behind the doctrine is that people should know what "punishment" might await them if they engage in certain conduct so they can make informed decisions and assess the penalties of risky or wrongful behavior. IMO, it is lame to argue that Rose knew he could be permanently banned from baseball if he gambled as a player or manager but that he never would have taken that risk if he also knew that it could make him automatically ineligible for the Hall of Fame.

Keep him out.


EDITED TO ADD: It also should be remembered that a) Rose agreed to a lifetime ban; and b) he continued to lie for years that he had bet on baseball. Each of these further supports a denial of his request.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don't follow this at all. Landis investigated while the allegations of fixing were still fresh, not "after the fact". He was hired because of the Black Sox scandal. Moreover, players had been banned before the Black Sox scandal, and I mean banned, not suspended. The Black Sox can maybe argue they were acquitted and that ought to count for something (an unimpressive argument IMO) or that enforcement was spotty, but the concerns that baseball had with gambling were long-established and serious before that scandal. It was prominently displayed that no betting was allowed.
Check the background on these cards: --"No.... Betting"


As for Rose, the warning about being permanently banned was posted in the clubhouse of every professional team for whom he ever played. That punishment is hardly ex post facto, which if course is a criminal law precept that has marginal if any application to entry into a place of honor. The theory behind the doctrine is that people should know what "punishment" might await them if they engage in certain conduct so they can make informed decisions and assess the penalties of risky or wrongful behavior. IMO, it is lame to argue that Rose knew he could be permanently banned from baseball if he gambled as a player or manager but that he never would have taken that risk if he also knew that it could make him automatically ineligible for the Hall of Fame.

Keep him out.

This proclamation is certainly after the fact.

"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball"

Now I am particularly thinking of Buck Weaver when I say this. He didn't take money and didn't throw games, yet Landis banned him for not "promptly" reporting it. It is one thing to ban a game-fixer, but vastly different to ban someone for not reporting something. Considering how wide-spread game fixing was at that time, that part of Landis' proclamation seems completely after the fact to me and incredibly unfair to Weaver. I think Buck always had a strong argument to be reinstated and he should be cleared long before either Pete Rose or Joe Jackson.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don't follow this at all. Landis investigated while the allegations of fixing were still fresh, not "after the fact". He was hired because of the Black Sox scandal. Moreover, players had been banned before the Black Sox scandal---banned, not suspended. The Black Sox can maybe argue they were acquitted and that ought to count for something (an unimpressive argument IMO) or that enforcement was spotty, but the concerns that baseball had with gambling were long-established and serious before that scandal. It was prominently displayed that no betting was allowed. They can hardly complain they had no idea what they were getting into as far as punishment was concerned.
Check the background on these cards: --"No.... Betting"


.

5 players were banned in 1876-77, but none after that. Do you really think players didn't continue to associate with gamblers and fix games? You could argue that they should have known not to fix the world series, but no betting or fixing games was not a rule.