pete rose

No. Hell no.

Rose wanted the lifetime ban. Either he was going to be banned from baseball for life or very unpleasant parts of his life were going to be made public. He chose the lesser of the two punishments.

This column says just about everything I want to say: http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1475194.html

 

from that same column on espn.com

The last question in the poll concerned Joe Jackson, and so I learned -- and gosh, how I wish I hadn't -- that 80 percent of the respondents think that if Pete Rose is reinstated, then Shoeless Joe Jackson should be, too.

 

Unless he bet <i> against </i> his team, I think he's more than paid the price.

 

No he hasn't. Not even close unless you want to debate the definition of the words "permanent" and "agreeing to a lifetime ban".

Now, suppose we agree that a lifetime ban is a harsh punishment for gambling on your own team. Even then, it makes little difference whether you bet for or against your team.

- Unless Rose bet on every game, there were games he didn't have any money riding on. Which means he could have been motivated to rest his regulars or not use his best relief pitcher pitcher for a game he did not gamble on, so he has a better chance of winning a game he did have money on.
Whether Rose actually did this is irrelevant. That he had the opportunity to do so is relevant.

- And still assuming Rose didn't bet on every game, the bookies and anyone else associated with the bookies knew which games Rose did and did not bet on. By not betting on a game, Rose was basically saying "I do not feel confident about the outcome of this game" - he might as well have bet against his team as far as the gambling comunity was concerned.

He committed the highest crime an athlete could commit against the integrity of the game. I don't understand why so many people are so sympathetic to his cause.

 

I don't think he should be allowed in a baseball stadium let alone the Hall of Fame.

 

Pete Rose is okay but ban that Terrel Owens for carrying a Sharpie in his sock.

 

The Golden Boy Paul Horning did all that, was banned (for life) and after a year he was taken back. Not only did he come back to football, but came back to play and help win a few titles for Titletown, USA.

Then he was voted into the Hall of Fame!

 

O.K. You're a manager. You bet on your team to win tomorrow night's game.

In tonight's game, you're behind by 4 runs in the 6th inning. Do you forget about this game and save your best players and pitchers for tomorrow night? Or do you try to get back in tonights game?

Unlike a lot of sports, a baseball game doesn't really stand on its own. Its part of a long series of games, and every game has an affect on the next one.

Betting for or against your team destroys the integrity of the game.

Having said that, I voted "yes" for him to be eligible. He should be in the hall of fame for his accomplishments as a player. But he should never be reinstated from the lifetime ban on playing or coaching.

The best thing about letting him in is we won't have to hear this arguement every year anymore.

 

Was he your boyhood hero or something? Are you 130 years old?

 

Great column. Good find, Skip. Quoth Mr. Neyer...:

"Illegal drugs certainly play havoc with the game's image, but gambling can seriously damage the game's integrity."

Of course, it's pretty clear that Bud Selig is more concerned with the game's image. The best thing to happen to that jag-off Selig was the McGuire/Sosa home run race. Not only did it help MLB recover a bit from the effects of the strike, it also drew attention away from the Florida Marlins selling off nearly every player from their World Series championship team. The home run race was good for the game's image, but the game's integrity took a serious hit from the Marlin sell-off. As my least-favorite sportswriter (Mike Lupica) said at the time regarding the sell-off, "this would never have happened if Bud Selig was alive."

One could say the same thing for the campaign to re-instate Rose. It would be a short-term image boost, but a long-term drain on the game's integrity.

 

Re: Re: Re: pete rose

I used to be, before the league became a farce. I know the story and have seen and read much on Jackson. I was just poking fun.

Sure Jackson deserves to be recognized, but the real injustice was done to him when his career was ruined - not his exclusion from the Hall. Honestly, I think Cooperstown is far too important in baseball. Utility infielders are making 4 million dollars, there are 4 good pitchers in the league and there's a labor dispute every 30 seconds. I think those are a bit more important than whether or not Rose can get a plaque or is allowed to participate in a front office. Its such a dead issue - and I say that as someone who lived in Cincinnati and really like the Reds.