Rose requests to be reinstated

[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.

Pete Rose and Joe Jackson should be in the H.O.F. nothing new there

[Bugsy]

I also want to add that I think Jackson is far more innocent than Rose. While I never bought into the whole illiterate Rube argument that he didn't know what was going on, there are some books on the 1919 scandal that have claimed Jackson didn't receive any money until after the Series and that he then twice tried to turn the money in. The first instance was the morning after the Series (also the morning after he was given the money), but Harry Grabiner wouldn't let Joe see Comiskey, who was already trying to insulate himself. The second time was when Grabiner went to South Carolina over the winter to get Joe to sign his 1920 contract.

We all know there are dozens of versions of who tried their best, who didn't, who was paid when, etc. Joe may be guilty, but in my mind, it is just as likely that he is innocent. Opinions certainly vary on that and we will never know for certain, but my real point is that there is a mountain of information condemning Rose. There is a better argument to clear both Buck AND Joe before Pete. In all honesty, it might be in baseball's best interest to do none of the above.

[nolemmings]

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"

I can agree that the notion of placing an affirmative duty on someone to report a fix, as opposed to participating in the conspiracy itself, is something that may not have been articulated well (or at all) before 1919, and thus view Weaver's case somewhat differently if you believe he opted out. Still, before that time players had been been banned for conspiring with gamblers; heck even for contract jumping, so it wasn't a huge stretch to at least fear a lifetime ban if you were known to have "associated with gamblers", even if they were your own teammates.
Remember too that Weaver et al were charged with crimes of conspiracy, which would have effectively ended their careers had they been found guilty and thus in essence imposed a form of banishment apart from baseball's own decision-making. Seems to me if I do something that might be criminal it would occur to me that my profession might take a dim view of it as well, such that I shouldn't be surprised if I am disciplined even if my exact situation might not have arisen before with others. It's a shame it put him in a posiion of ratting out his friends or going down with them, but given the enormity of the scandal and how it could have completely ruined baseball, I can see why Landis took an aggressive approach with the rod.

[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.

[nolemmings]

Apparently you cannot see the forest for the trees. Do you not see the cards I posted showing that NO BETTING was prominently displayed? Players had been banned for gambling scandals so long it was not even much of an issue. A team physician was banned for bribing an umpire, i.e. fixing a game; a manager was informally banned (fired and blackballed) for trying to fix a batting title in favor of Lajoie. And yes I know Hal Chase and others lived on the edge and apparently never got caught or "convicted" of potential gambling ties but if you think that the players were unaware that they could not gamble or fix games you are clueless. Players could be banned for simply not honoring their contracts and could be jailed for fixing their games, yet you believe there was no “rule” against fixing the results?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Apparently you cannot see the forest for the trees. Do you not see the cards I posted showing that NO BETTING was prominently displayed? Players had been banned for gambling scandals so long it was not even much of an issue. A team physician was banned for bribing an umpire, i.e. fixing a game; a manager was informally banned (fired and blackballed) for trying to fix a batting title in favor of Lajoie. And yes I know Hal Chase and others lived on the edge and apparently never got caught or "convicted" of potential gambling ties but if you think that the players were unaware that they could not gamble or fix games you are clueless. Players could be banned for simply not honoring their contracts and could be jailed for fixing their games, yet you believe there was no “rule” against fixing the results?

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker fixed a game. Why were they never banned? Why are they in the Hall of Fame? There were several other players who fixed games prior to the 1919 WS and were not banned until after the Black Sox scandal broke. Why were there no players banned for over 40 years?

John Mc Graw bet on his team to win the 1905 WS. It was public knowledge, but he was never punished. Why is he in the hof?

Betting on baseball wasn't a formal rule until 1926. One year if you bet on a baseball game, life if you bet on your team. Why did Landis need to make this rule if it existed prior to 1919?

[Theo_450]

Oh Pete.
You have got what you find on the street.
You named a great slide,
Now on the sword you have died,
Should have not led with your head but your feet.

Anyone want to trade for a 1985 MINT Pete Rose official baseball card set?
120 cards I found in my grandfathers attic. Truly MINT and exceedingly rare/scarce...

Will trade for gently used Harley parts or ammo, or a fried pork chop biscuit from Hardee's.

Edited to add... I do not have the fancy red box...

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by rats60

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker fixed a game. Why were they never banned? Why are they in the Hall of Fame? There were several other players who fixed games prior to the 1919 WS and were not banned until after the Black Sox scandal broke. Why were there no players banned for over 40 years?

John Mc Graw bet on his team to win the 1905 WS. It was public knowledge, but he was never punished. Why is he in the hof?

Betting on baseball wasn't a formal rule until 1926. One year if you bet on a baseball game, life if you bet on your team. Why did Landis need to make this rule if it existed prior to 1919?

It would be naive to argue that gambling on baseball did not exist prior to 1919, and baseball could be selective in enforcing its rules, but that is not the point. The issue was raised that the Black Sox were treated in some after-the- fact fashion; i.e., that what they did was somehow not against the rules and that it was arguably unfair to punish them, or at least Weaver, for conduct that had not been proscribed previously. That is simply untrue.

I assume you have read about the Louisville Grays scandal in 1877 and the banishments that followed for association with gamblers/fixing of games. Those banned players tried repeatedly to be reinstated over the years, and their pleas were always denied, so the message about baseball coming down seriously on fixers was commonly known. If you peruse “The Fix is In: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals” by Daniel Ginsburg, you’ll see a narrative of several gambling investigations from after the Louisville scandal through the first part of the 20th Century. In no case did the players ever challenge an accusation of fixing or gambling by claiming there was no rule against it. None defended by saying such conduct was not prohibited. They would claim that they did not do what was alleged, or, more accurately, that it could not be proved, but they did not argue that gambling on baseball and rigging of games was somehow ambiguous or acceptable behavior, or that someone guilty of same did not merit strong punishment. That issue had been decided long before, which is my point– the punishments doled out to Weaver et. al. were not unprecedented and were not without there being a “rule” against the activity they chose to undertake.