Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ironically, you can probably place bets on whether they will be elected or not.

This is why.

Also not that it matters to the ones currently running MLB, but it reduces the hypocrisy of having people banned for gambling while the league itself has a team in Vegas and ties to online gambling through Fanatics.

So having standards and morality are out as long as there's buckets of money to be had.

I hate the world more nearly every day.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by steve b

this is why.

Also not that it matters to the ones currently running mlb, but it reduces the hypocrisy of having people banned for gambling while the league itself has a team in vegas and ties to online gambling through fanatics.

So having standards and morality are out as long as there's buckets of money to be had.

I hate the world more nearly every day.

+100 💯💯💯

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

Their bans were mostly temporary. And only lasted as long as they were doing PR for casinos. If I remember it right Willie was contracted for a year and after that was back in. Didn't know about Mantle, but probably a similar situation

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by steve B

Their bans were mostly temporary. And only lasted as long as they were doing PR for casinos. If I remember it right Willie was contracted for a year and after that was back in. Didn't know about Mantle, but probably a similar situation

I thought Peter Ueberroth lifted their bans from baseball when he became commissioner.

[steve B]

A few thoughts.

The difference between Jackson and Rose.
Jackson may have thrown the series, as a talented player he could have failed in the right spots while playing well in others.
While they probably knew what they did was wrong, it wasn't yet against the rules (as far as I know. )

Rose - every day of his career walked past a sign saying gambling was against the rules and would result in a ban. Every day for 20+ years....
And at some point despite being told every day not to do it he went ahead and did it anyway.


And since this is a sports card and memorabilia group..
We're on page 4 and apparently have forgotten that along the way to the record for hits sold bats supposedly from a particular hit multiple times. So there are say two or more bats from hit 4101 out there. All hard to prove as game used since he was using at least one for every at bat. (I'm ok with one or more bats per AB, but not selling more than one as "the bat that got this hit"

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

burn it all down

The hall of fame? But there's some priceless stuff in there!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No you weren't. I said a man is innocent until convicted. I said nothing about anyone found guilty. It's a logical error to leap from my statement to the assumption that any and all those convicted are actually guilty.





Yes, those words of yours do indeed sound ridiculous.

Cicotte was found not guilty of throwing games. Are you saying he was, in fact, not guilty of doing so? Because he said he was guilty, and described in detail how he did it, right from his very first pitch.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

I've seen a lot of things go south in Pete Rose argument threads, but never someone who wants to debate whether a 30-something year old man should be able to have sex with a 14-16 year old because they said "yes."

Nice try asshole, but first of all I said nothing about "should". I don't advise others on how to live their lives. I'm actually too selfishly living my own to bother.

Secondly lumping 14-16 year olds together is fundamentally dishonest since I see that the age of consent in 34 American states is sixteen. So there's a very big legal difference between a fourteen year old and a sixteen year old. And that is an all-important difference.

Originally Posted by BioCRN

The fact someone wants to debate this in a Pete Rose discussion....

"Wants"? Check the thread. I wasn't the one who introduced the topic. But willing to debate I always am even if jerks like you want to bring it down to an exchange of slurs. I won't be cowed from a rational assessment of this or any other subject.

Originally Posted by BioCRN

...and doesn't realize it doesn't need debating because it's creepy and disgusting is just as f'n weird.

Excuse me? Someone was arguing that Pete Rose shouldn't be in the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his relationship with a teenage girl. That statement demanded a response on several levels, e.g. the lack of proof that said girl was underage according to State law plus the fact that it's the Baseball Hall of Fame and not some Pantheon of Saints to which we're discussing admission.

And I really don't give a damn of how politically incorrect or offensive to some my responding happens to be. Screw that. Like I say, I'm tough minded enough to put up with the blowback from the small minded and name calling from the likes of you. I'll just say that I wish you only the worst.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Cicotte was found not guilty of throwing games. Are you saying he was, in fact, not guilty of doing so? Because he said he was guilty, and described in detail how he did it, right from his very first pitch.

Don't know and don't much care. The only thing I'll repeat is that a man is innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

What then about Cicotte being banned from the game? Well MLB is a private entity and can make its own rules. MLB can ban anyone for any reason and didn't owe Cicotte anything. If Cicotte didn't like the treatment he got from MLB, he could play elsewhere or start his own league for that matter. I actually wish he had. Competition is a good thing.

What I hate though is hypocrisy. It's been touched upon in two places in this thread. With respect to Pete Rose being banned from MLB for gambling, I actually support it. He knew the rule and he broke it. What riles me now though is that MLB has cozied up to gambling and gamblers because it's found a way to turn gambling into a cash cow. Well that's gross hypocrisy in my book.

Secondly, I understand that the Baseball Hall of Fame has always claimed to be independent of MLB. Well constantly acting as MLB's toady while making this claim constitutes hypocrisy. Given that Pete Rose is justifiably famous for both his exploits on the field and for having been banned from MLB, he should therefore be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. But since he needs to be voted in by others, they're entitled to ignore my advice. And I'm entitled to sneer and refer to the Hall of Fame with Johnny Rotten's chosen expression.

[babraham]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are. I'd guess you mask your insecurities behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard. "You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

+1

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by babraham

+1

+1000

Leon, clean-up on aisle 2 needed.

[GrayGhost]

I feel Rose was egregious in his behavior by betting while he was managing.

Joe played hard and really wasn't, apparently, totally aware of what he was doing.

Id put Joe in, and Pete no. But, again, its all about perception. if its only based on field performance, of course Pete is a lock

[theshowandme]

Send the asteroid

[B O'Brien]

O damn, this looks like a disaster! I’m glad I kept my Memory Lane popcorn.

Weirdly anticipating reading to see what happened here. I haven’t seen that many quote boxes in a long time.

Me: Joe in, Pete no, but a hit leader plaque.

Happy Friday,
Bob

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by B O'Brien

O damn, this looks like a disaster! I’m glad I kept my Memory Lane popcorn.

Just a normal ol' HOF discussion going on. Nothing controversial at all. Everyone is having a fun ol' time. Yup. ...sigh. Phew...baseball cards are fun.

[AMPduppp]

Since every thread needs a card, and I believe this one is still missing one, here’s a good summary of what it’s like to read through this trainwreck

[bk400]

There's an Apple TV documentary series about Magic Johnson out right now. It is really well done, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, it brings back memories of what Magic did in the wake of his HIV diagnosis and how, also in my humble opinion, he was a hero when it came to de-stigmatizing the disease and focusing resources and attention on helping people live normal lives with the disease.

Magic clearly wasn't a saint, but he not only admitted it, but he made it a mission to have some good come out of the negative consequences of his lifestyle choices.

Imagine if Pete Rose used his platform in the wake of his being banned by baseball to educate people about problem gambling. Instead, he focused on excusing or underplaying the seriousness of his actions. Selling autographs mocking his gambling.

If Pete Rose were like Magic, perhaps we wouldn't have gambling so intertwined with professional sports today.

And maybe, like Magic, he would have been embraced by society at large, as opposed to being a polarizing figure up to and beyond his death.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bk400

There's an Apple TV documentary series about Magic Johnson out right now. It is really well done, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, it brings back memories of what Magic did in the wake of his HIV diagnosis and how, also in my humble opinion, he was a hero when it came to de-stigmatizing the disease and focusing resources and attention on helping people live normal lives with the disease.

Magic clearly wasn't a saint, but he not only admitted it, but he made it a mission to have some good come out of the negative consequences of his lifestyle choices.

Imagine if Pete Rose used his platform in the wake of his being banned by baseball to educate people about problem gambling. Instead, he focused on excusing or underplaying the seriousness of his actions. Selling autographs mocking his gambling.

If Pete Rose were like Magic, perhaps we wouldn't have gambling so intertwined with professional sports today.

And maybe, like Magic, he would have been embraced by society at large, as opposed to being a polarizing figure up to and beyond his death.

I don't think you can blame Rose for the current level of sports gambling and how it's become intertwined with professional sports. Once the states (other than Nevada) were able to legally offer it, the amount of money to be made by the states and the leagues led to where we are today. Remember, all the leagues were against legalizing sports betting, but once it happened, they saw there was money to be made and decided to accept it.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I don't think you can blame Rose for the current level of sports gambling and how it's become intertwined with professional sports. Once the states (other than Nevada) were able to legally offer it, the amount of money to be made by the states and the leagues led to where we are today. Remember, all the leagues were against legalizing sports betting, but once it happened, they saw there was money to be made and decided to accept it.

I don't blame Rose for the current level of gambling in sports, but I do wonder whether a player of his stature would have made a difference if he educated people about the dangers of problem gambling. It might have become politically toxic to bring gambling out from the shadows of the sport if Pete Rose used his popularity to turn voters against gambling as a general matter.

I mean, I remember distinctly that people used to equate HIV with being gay, but after Magic came out and talked about it, if you walked around school making fun of AIDS and gay people, it all of a sudden wasn't cool or funny any more.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

That was a controversial move Kuhn made.
They were not betting or accussed of gambling.
They were signed as spokesman for a casino and Kuhn was worried about perception vs reality.
IT was also very quickly changed

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bk400

I don't blame Rose for the current level of gambling in sports, but I do wonder whether a player of his stature would have made a difference if he educated people about the dangers of problem gambling. It might have become politically toxic to bring gambling out from the shadows of the sport if Pete Rose used his popularity to turn voters against gambling as a general matter.

I mean, I remember distinctly that people used to equate HIV with being gay, but after Magic came out and talked about it, if you walked around school making fun of AIDS and gay people, it all of a sudden wasn't cool or funny any more.

Considering how much gambling was happening before it was legalized in many states, I doubt there's anything Rose or anyone else could have done to keep us from where we are now. Too much money for the states and the leagues to ignore.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

I’ve never understood the argument that MLB accepting advertising dollars from Gaming Companies somehow makes gambling within the sport a lesser offense. It’s pretty simple, every major sports entity both professional and amateur forbids sports wagering and the cardinal sin is beating on your own sport/team. It’s not an ethical dilemma without an answer. My company accepts advertising dollars from Liquor and Beer companies, that shouldn’t somehow morally protect me from action if I’m drinking on the job. I wouldn’t somehow be in some deep ethos predicament if Jeff in accounting was fired for pounding airplane bottles of Tito’s all day long just because we advertise InBev corp.

So should we assume that accepting those ads from liquor and beer companies can be seen as compromising your company's integrity? Because that's certainly the situation with MLB cozying up to the gambling industry.

[Blunder19]

Originally Posted by B O'Brien

O damn, this looks like a disaster! I’m glad I kept my Memory Lane popcorn.

Happy Friday,
Bob

Hahaha this made me laugh !