Should Pete Rose be Reinstated into Baseball?

[sportstar1212]

Nobody has to go along with the majority. I'll respect any opinion that can be defended.

[Evil G]

So why is gambling so detrimental to the sport? I mean it could result in fixed games and records but clearly Rose wasn't the type to tank as the hit record should tell you.

Warren Sapp assaulted a hooker, and he's still in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. So what makes gambling in baseball be worse than being an all-around terrible human being?

[TheRicSlick]

So why is gambling so detrimental to the sport? I mean it could result in fixed games and records but clearly Rose wasn't the type to tank as the hit record should tell you.

Warren Sapp assaulted a hooker, and he's still in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. So what makes gambling in baseball be worse than being an all-around terrible human being?

Well, Sapp didn't throw games or point shave, which we have no clue if Rose did or did not.

Besides, him being a dumbass off the field has nothing to do with what he did on the field.

[-kj]

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa follow the crowd right?

I have the right to my view too or is that not allowed in America any more?

If you're going to whine about freedom of speech, remember that it works both ways. You are allowed to say anything you want; this doesn't mean that others can't tell you that whatever you said is really, really dumb.

[NJTank]

You know there are rumors Ty Cobb threw games bet on baseballnand killed someone.

[bosrs1]

You know there are rumors Ty Cobb threw games bet on baseballnand killed someone.

Yep, and if they're ever proven I'd hope he'd be removed from the hall.

[bosrs1]

So why is gambling so detrimental to the sport? I mean it could result in fixed games and records but clearly Rose wasn't the type to tank as the hit record should tell you.

Warren Sapp assaulted a hooker, and he's still in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. So what makes gambling in baseball be worse than being an all-around terrible human being?

I think you just answered your own question. Gambling is detrimental because it leads to fixed games. Which undermine the very integrity of the sport. This isn't the WWE. If you can't trust that everyone is trying their best to win then what's the point of watching? That was the exact question that prompted such a harsh response to the Black Sox and the same question that prompts such a harsh response today. If you can't trust in the integrity of the sport there's no reason to watch.

[OnWis97]

So why is gambling so detrimental to the sport? I mean it could result in fixed games and records but clearly Rose wasn't the type to tank as the hit record should tell you.

Warren Sapp assaulted a hooker, and he's still in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. So what makes gambling in baseball be worse than being an all-around terrible human being?

I am not saying a gambler is a worse person than Warren Sapp. So don't let that get lost. But what Sapp did did not have an impact on the game. (OK, it could have, in theory, been bad publicity, but we all see the difference).

Whether people doing bad things off the field that don't impact the game should impact their HOF status is an entirely different issue. Maybe it should. But it's not as simple as the worse person is worse for the game. Some college kid shaves points for money once while his teammate commits a rape, yeah, the latter is a worse person. But the former is the one who is threatening the game.

[Mac the Knife]

Rumors are flying, and it seems that his ASG involvement may be seeing how he/ fans handle it. I say he shouldn't be banned. What he did was terrible, but he still earned his title as the all time hit king and I'd rather have him in the hall of fame than A-Rod or Barry Bonds. What do y'all think and why?

HOF membership is (at least formally) separate from reinstatement. I'm ambivalent about the HOF honestly - and will really not care if known juicers ultimately get in. But where reinstatement's concerned? Absolutely not.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Is there a portion of the Hall of Fame that sheds a light on controversy? Hall of Shame is too strong a word, but are there exhibits about less savory -- yet still important -- aspects of baseball history?

It'd be a nice way to get Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe and the steroid guys technically into the Hall of Fame without enshrining them as HOF members.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with Barry Bonds being included. The rules were more ambiguous when he was doping (or maybe they weren't; I don't know. The whole timeline of what was illegal when and who knew what is a disaster).

[Gothamite]

Yes. The Hall of Fame does have exhibits on controversies. I'm pretty sure there's been one on Rose, talking about why he was banned from baseball while mentioning his stats.

There is absolutely a case to be made in support of the dopers. They didn't pass by a sign posted in every locker room prohibiting it. But as we've seen on this thread, there's no logical case to let Rose back in the game at all.

[tp49]

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa follow the crowd right?

I have the right to my view too or is that not allowed in America any more?

You know Tank, for a guy who works in a courtroom all day (presumably a trial court and not an arraignment court) and watches attorneys put together cogent arguments for their position you would think you'd put forward a better argument for Rose's reinstatement than what you put forth. You're entitled to your viewpoint but put up a better argument for your position.

[jigokusabre]

No.

Rose knew the rule. Rose broke the rule. Rose accepted his ban to stop the investigation. Rose tried to lie his way into sympathy, but the tide of his deception kept retreating. "I didn't bet on baseball. OK, I did, but never as a player. OK I did, but never against my own team."

Rose knew the rule. Rose broke the rule. It was a rule that was in place for decades before he ever put on a uniform. There has been only one punishment for that rule.

Pete Rose should not be in the hall of fame, and he has only himself to blame.

[DaytonBlue]

I don't think it would be a big deal if the Reds were allowed to honor Rose once in awhile on opening day or something like they did at the ASG. It's something their fans deserve and want. That's as far as I would take it though. Integrity of the game is paramount.

[NJTank]

See to me I think Rose should be in more for the fans than for himself personally. Pete Rose was a beloved member of the Big Red Machine and those fans deserve to see his face in Cooperstown on bronze plaque. The Baseball Hall of Fame takes itself way to seriously, and speaking as a conservative republic though be it one with a libertarian viewpoint there comes a certain point when you need to honor the player more than the person.

If Paul Hornung can be in the NFL HOF why not Rose. Why not Shoeless Joe who was a patsy to begin with.

As for the steroids guys its a disgraced they are being punished.

The entire sport was guilty of steroids, the owners looked the other way and reaped the rewards, the reporters knew but were told to keep it on the downlow because it was helping the sport emerge from the 1994 strike mess, and the comish and players association all wanted it kept hush hush. It was only Jose Canseco's book and congress that forced a change and make everyone act so 'outraged".

[NJTank]

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa follow the crowd right?

I have the right to my view too or is that not allowed in America any more?

You know Tank, for a guy who works in a courtroom all day (presumably a trial court and not an arraignment court) and watches attorneys put together cogent arguments for their position you would think you'd put forward a better argument for Rose's reinstatement than what you put forth. You're entitled to your viewpoint but put up a better argument for your position.

I thought I put forth good arguments earlier I just dont like when people use everyone else is against Rose and so should you, but at the same time it is hard to be the lone voice in the wilderness against group think and I was just frustrated.

[Gothamite]

See to me I think Rose should be in more for the fans than for himself personally. Pete Rose was a beloved member of the Big Red Machine and those fans deserve to see his face in Cooperstown on bronze plaque.

See, here's where I agree with you. It's a damn shame that Rose can't be in the Hall of Fame for that reason.

But you're ignoring the fact that Pete Rose is the only one responsible for that. Pete Rose obviously doesn't give a about that fans, caring only about himself.

Rose is the one who broke the rule, repeatedly, for decades. Rose is the one who lied when he got caught, who smeared the people who (truthfully) accused him, and who has gone on lying for decades, only modifying the lies when new evidence emerges making the old lies untenable.

Rose, and only Rose, has continued to make any sort of settlement impossible by refusing to express even the smallest amount of contrition. And the few admissions he has made only came when they were convenient to promote his products.

I understand your frustration over the state of affairs. What I don't understand is your refusal to hold responsible the only man who can possibly shoulder any of the blame. That's neither a conservative position nor a libertarian one. Those philosophies are built on a foundation of personal responsibility, owning your own actions and the consequences rather than trying to pawn them off on somebody else.

Pete hasn't demonstrated so much as an ounce of personal responsibility since this whole mess began. It boggles my mind that you're so willing to enable him in that.

[oldschoolvikings]

I'm late to this discussion, so I'll make it quick.

No.

[BBTV]

As much hatred as MLB as for Rose, if they had evidence that he bet against the Reds they would have said it.

Pete Rose has 4,256 hits the most ever he is a Hall of Famer

As much as I do think that Rose should be in the HOF (I don't think that being banned from baseball should impact one's HOF eligibility), it's absolutely stupid to think that betting for one's team isn't as bad as betting against it.

1. As a manager, knowing that he has money on his team to win, he may leave an ace pitcher in longer than normally, which could lead to injury (or actually cost his team the game.)

2. Conversely, he could be quick to the bullpen, or basically manage every game like it's game 7 of the WS. It could impact players' careers when they're not handled correctly.

3. A player that "costs him money" by failing in a key spot could be burried or treated differently.

4. What about the games he didn't bet on? So he goes all out with moves to win the ones he does bet on, does he rest key players and effectively "throw" games that he doesn't have money on?

Betting both FOR and AGAINST definitely impacts the way that the game is managed, impacts players' careers, and impacts the standings in ways that aren't necessarily obvious. Betting for his team on occasion could actually result in more losses that while not technically intentional, are a direct result of his gambling.

It's not difficult to see why betting on the game in any capacity is a big deal.

[NJTank]

doesn't' Floyd Mayweather bet on himself all the time?