Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

I remember reading that he only bet on his Reds to win

So then he wasn't purposefully betting for his Reds to lose and/or intentionally making bad decisions during a game to achieve a loss. He should be in for his playing career achievements, no doubt.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

So then he wasn't purposefully betting for his Reds to lose and/or intentionally making bad decisions during a game to achieve a loss. He should be in for his playing career achievements, no doubt.

Rose maintained he never bet on baseball (until he needed to sell some books and then said that he in fact did, conceding the obvious). At the end of the investigation in 1989, Rose voluntarily agreed to accept the lifetime ban.

"THEREFORE, the Commissioner, recognizing the benefits to Baseball from a resolution of this matter, orders and directs that Peter Edward Rose be subject to the following disciplinary sanctions, and Peter Edward Rose, recognizing the sole and exclusive authority of the Commissioner and that it is in his interest to resolve this matter without further proceedings, agrees to accept the following disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Commissioner:
a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

It seems difficult to see why Rose would accept the ban and sign off on it, in exchange for "resolv[ing] this matter without further proceedings" unless there was something more that had not yet been shown in the Dowd report. If everything had been found at this point, he would have no reason to agree to the ban in exchange for quashing deeper investigation. A lifetime ban is the most that Major League Baseball could do to him; an effective plea deal where he gets the harshest possibly punishment in exchange for quashing further investigating has never made sense to me, unless there was something more to find. Perhaps that something more was that he had done it while a player too, which came out a few years ago. Perhaps it was something else. It seems to me that some pieces of this story remain a secret, and that the testimony of Pete Rose is completely worthless and changes with whatever benefits him most at the time the statement is given.

[ejharrington]

Yes, yes and yes. Also yes to McGuire, Sosa, Schilling, Hernandez, Ramirez, and Rodriguez.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Yes, yes and yes. Also yes to McGuire, Sosa, Schilling, Hernandez, Ramirez, and Rodriguez.

I’ve always said, one gets in they all get in. Put an asterisk if need be. Can’t keep that era out!

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

It seems difficult to see why Rose would accept the ban and sign off on it, in exchange for "resolv[ing] this matter without further proceedings" unless there was something more that had not yet been shown in the Dowd report. If everything had been found at this point, he would have no reason to agree to the ban in exchange for quashing deeper investigation. A lifetime ban is the most that Major League Baseball could do to him; an effective plea deal where he gets the harshest possibly punishment in exchange for quashing further investigating has never made sense to me, unless there was something more to find. Perhaps that something more was that he had done it while a player too, which came out a few years ago. Perhaps it was something else. It seems to me that some pieces of this story remain a secret, and that the testimony of Pete Rose is completely worthless and changes with whatever benefits him most at the time the statement is given.

Pete Rose will be lucky if he's remembered as the gambling guy. Luckier than Michael Jackson anyway.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Pete Rose will be lucky if he's remembered as the gambling guy. Luckier than Michael Jackson anyway.

I’m not aware of any evidence supporting the allegation, and I believe the attorney accusing Rose had to settle after Rose sued him for defamation as a result.

[SyrNy1960]

Of all the roid users, I don’t get why so many people are so pro Bonds to go in the HOF. His roid use, which by the way, positive test or not, is obvious, got him the all time regular season and all time HR records.

Yes, most agree he didn’t need roids to accomplish a HOF career, but those HR records wouldn’t be his without roids. I would think most would be pissed about that; especially the all time HR record.

No matter what, My stand will always be, if you let one in, you let all in.

It was an enjoyable era, which is a part of baseball history.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

So then he wasn't purposefully betting for his Reds to lose and/or intentionally making bad decisions during a game to achieve a loss. He should be in for his playing career achievements, no doubt.

It's late in the year and you take your team into Pittsburgh for a 3-game series. Your bullpen has a few tired arms, your starters are nursing a few minor injuries. You're the manager of your club - in complete control over who will play, and when. And then you bet on your team to win the 3rd game of the series, but you don't bet on your team (or the other team) to win the first or second game.

See the conflict of interest? Will you use your top reliever in the 2nd game, or save him for the game you're betting on? Will you rest up a starter in one of the first 2 games to get him fresh for game 3?

And think of the blackmail possibilities you're creating against yourself. A bookie, who has records of your bets placed, drops a hint that he might spill the beans and blow the whole story (and Rose's career) wide open unless Larkin gets the day off on a certain day.....

Rose is a student of the game. He knew the fundamental, #1 rule of baseball: Don't bet on games. He knew 8 guys were expelled from the game for gambling, including a certain HOFer. Rose knew, and he did it anyway. He made his choice.