Pete Rose Poll

[sam majors]

Didn't Major League Baseball permit Pete Rose to "associate" with the other players elected to the All Century Team. I believe it was before a World Series game in the late 90's. It was 30 minutes of baseball history on National television with Rose appearing on the field with some of the greats of all time.
I guess rule 21 was waived for the night! Why? Sam Majors

[JollyElm]

I wonder how much money Pete Rose lost when he bet on O.J. Simpson being convicted.

[Mountaineer1999]

Wow! What a great turnout. I've really enjoyed reading through all the comments pro and con. I see both sides of the argument but I still come down on the side of letting him in. I know he screwed up but I just think its been long enough, time served. When Rule 21 was introduced it was for the purpose of cleaning up what was a corrupt game. With contracts what they are today we are in no danger of reverting back to the problems with gambling that plagued the game in its early days. So I think the 26 year banishment has served the same purpose in showing players how serious the league is as a lifetime ban would show.

[PolarBear]

I don't see how what Rose did affects his stats, which is what his induction would be based on.

Contrast that with the PED generation - Sosa, McGwire, Bonds etc. They deserve not only to be banned from the HOF but have their stats erased from the record books completely.

[HRBAKER]

nope

[tschock]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I don't see how what Rose did affects his stats, which is what his induction would be based on.

Contrast that with the PED generation - Sosa, McGwire, Bonds etc. They deserve not only to be banned from the HOF but have their stats erased from the record books completely.

Just curious. Why? Because they cheated? Because what they did was illegal? Because it gave them an edge?

What is you view on existing members of the HOF who did the same? Should they be removed?

[Frank A]

All you bleeding hearts come out in favor of that BUM. The rule is NO betting on Baseball. Period. He knew it. He did it. He is not above the rules. Screw Pete Rose. Letting him in the hall would be a disgrace.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by tschock

Just curious. Why? Because they cheated? Because what they did was illegal? Because it gave them an edge?

What is you view on existing members of the HOF who did the same? Should they be removed?

What players are you talking about? I am not aware of any evidence against existing members of the hof. I have heard acquisitions against Henderson without proof, like Piazza and Bagwell. Barry Bonds admitted under oath that he used steroids, the clear and the cream. If you can provide similar evidence that any current hofer used steroids, then I would favor removing them. Even though I doubt it would ever happen. I don't think there is even a way to expel members from the hof.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by rats60

What players are you talking about? I am not aware of any evidence against existing members of the hof. I have heard acquisitions against Henderson without proof, like Piazza and Bagwell. Barry Bonds admitted under oath that he used steroids, the clear and the cream. If you can provide similar evidence that any current hofer used steroids, then I would favor removing them. Even though I doubt it would ever happen. I don't think there is even a way to expel members from the hof.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on my question. I was looking for your reasoning behind expunging all PED players records and not allowing them to be eligible. I wasn't implying others in the HOF were PED takers. I just wanted to understand if you argument was a logical or emotional one, hence my questions.

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by rats60

What players are you talking about? I am not aware of any evidence against existing members of the hof. I have heard acquisitions against Henderson without proof, like Piazza and Bagwell. Barry Bonds admitted under oath that he used steroids, the clear and the cream. If you can provide similar evidence that any current hofer used steroids, then I would favor removing them. Even though I doubt it would ever happen. I don't think there is even a way to expel members from the hof.

Players in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were eating Greenies like they were candy. Several players from that era in the HOF have been linked to their use.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I don't see how what Rose did affects his stats, which is what his induction would be based on.

Contrast that with the PED generation - Sosa, McGwire, Bonds etc. They deserve not only to be banned from the HOF but have their stats erased from the record books completely.

Totally agree!

[xplainer]

I voted YES based on what he did on the field.

I "met" Pete at Al Lopez Field in the mid 70's. The Red had lost to the Phillies and Pete went something like 1 for 4. He took batting practice after the game. He hit one over the fence and my buddy ran around the park to get it. He came back with the ball, and when Pete had finished his practice, my best friend jumped over the dugout and said, "Mr. Rose, could please you sign this ball for me?"

His response was "Get off the f*%&ing field, you f&*%ing kid!", then turned and ran to his dugout...and down the tunnel.

I will never forget that day.

But, statistically, he belongs in the HOF.

[tbob]

Pete can get in as soon as Joe Jackson once again becomes eligible and is inducted.