Pete Rose
Posted By: Skunk Boy
Pete Rose - 01/07/04 04:38 PM
Ok, somebody had to start a thread about Pete Rose. What does everyone think about him? I really want to wait until I see the interview, and read the article (I'll just read Sports Illustrated, I don't need to spend money on his book).
I see it a number of different ways.
1. He said he didn't feel the punishment fit the crime. That if he had been addicted to drugs that the league would have given him help. But he gambled, and that meant a life sentance.
- I agree, the punishment really does not fit, but he knew the rule. It is baseball's golden rule.
- Also, betting affects the game. He said he never bet against his team, always for his team. This is not bad, cause you should always try to win, but he also knew who would be pitching and the health of his players, so it was a little advantage (but atleast he bet FOR his team).
2. The Hall of Fame, IMHO, should judge the player and how he played, not necessarily the character of the player.
Personally, I think they should let him in the hall of fame. Sure, there can be an asterisk or something that mentions his "delay" into the hall. I don't think that he should be allowed to manage or anything though. He did break "the golden rule", and lied about it for 14 years.
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 04:40 PM
He agreed to the lifetime ban and lied to everyone about his activities for 14 years. No Hall of Fame for him during his lifetime. But let him know that he will be eligible after his lifetime--then let the veterans' committee make the call.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 04:48 PM
Quote:
but at least he bet FOR his team
I don't think that makes it any better. Was he more or less likely to overuse his closer when he had $100,000 riding on the game?
I agree that he should be eligible for the Hall after he dies. That way you afford no accolades to him personally, he never gets to make his speech, but you do recognize his accomplishments on the field.
Posted By: RandomName
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 05:52 PM
I am disgusted by his repeated and vehement protestations of innocence over a period of 14 years, only to have him now come out and admit that he was lying the whole time. Plus, of his own volition he agreed to a lifetime ban and now is trying to claim the whole thing is unfair.
He did the crime. Now he wants to weasel out of the time. He strikes me as a world-class narcissist who believes the rules should be bent for him. Bottom line, the situation was "do not gamble in baseball or you may pay a horrible penalty" and now he wants to say "but I'm Charlie Hustle and even though I broke the regulations and then lied repeatedly and claimed I was being persecuted I should still be rewarded". The only thing he should get is a regular public shunning wherever he goes.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 05:55 PM
Quote:
I am disgusted by his repeated and vehement protestations of innocence over a period of 14 years, only to have him now come out and admit that he was lying the whole time.
Hmmm! Are we talking about Pete Rose or Bill Clinton?
Posted By: Mr. Clean
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 05:56 PM
Quote:
I am disgusted by his repeated and vehement protestations of innocence over a period of 14 years, only to have him now come out and admit that he was lying the whole time. Plus, of his own volition he agreed to a lifetime ban and now is trying to claim the whole thing is unfair.
He did the crime. Now he wants to weasel out of the time. He strikes me as a world-class narcissist who believes the rules should be bent for him. Bottom line, the situation was "do not gamble in baseball or you may pay a horrible penalty" and now he wants to say "but I'm Charlie Hustle and even though I broke the regulations and then lied repeatedly and claimed I was being persecuted I should still be rewarded". The only thing he should get is a regular public shunning wherever he goes.
Well said!!!! While Pete's athletic abilities should one day be recognized, his moral caliber should be inspected right now.
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 06:04 PM
I believe in forgiveness and I think he should be forgiven. However, forgiveness does not also mean a return to a former status. There are penalties for our actions.
RANT RANT RANT
I heard a little of the interview and he used that word used by so many other malfeasors: "MISTAKE." "I made a mistake." NO, NO, NO!!! This is a misteak.
A mistake would be aiming your hammer at the tent-stake and hitting the tent-stake-holder instead. It is not a mistake for the hammer wielder to decide to hit the holder of the tent stake with the hammer--that is an intentional act and should be characterized as such. Another mistake may have been made by the holder in trusting the hammer wielder.
If I ever here "mistakes were made" again in these instances, I think I will...well...I can't think of what I'll do, but it won't be by mistake.
Posted By: RGS
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 06:14 PM
I think that Pete Rose should be allowed in the Hall of Fame about 80 years after they let Shoeless Joe Jackson into the Hall. From everything that I know, Jackson was possibly innocent or at least didn't throw off his performance to throw the Black Sox series.
Posted By: deppfan
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 07:47 PM
Quote:
I believe in forgiveness and I think he should be forgiven. However, forgiveness does not also mean a return to a former status. There are penalties for our actions.
Well said Z. That's what I try to teach my kids (and realize myself).
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 08:15 PM
I don't think he should have been punished at all. Had he bet against his team then lost, there may have been some controversy. But he bet for his team then tried to win. (Can't remember if his team won or lost now)
Why is it that any person, of legal age, can go to Vegas and bet on anything in the world, but just because you’re a coach you can't bet on baseball?
I agree he should not have lied about it, but come on people get over yourselves.
Posted By: deppfan
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 08:21 PM
Quote:
I don't think he should have been punished at all. Had he bet against his team then lost, there may have been some controversy. But he bet for his team then tried to win. (Can't remember if his team won or lost now)
Why is it that any person, of legal age, can go to Vegas and bet on anything in the world, but just because you’re a coach you can't bet on baseball?
I agree he should not have lied about it, but come on people get over yourselves.
I don't disagree with you, in that you can go to Vegas and gamble, but he knew what he was doing was wrong. I don't understand some of the ridiculously low speedlimits in some of the rural areas, but I know if I choose to do 70 in a 50, I'm taking a chance on a ticket. I have to plead ignorance on the rules that he broke, cuz until CubDave came along, I never watched a game in my life. (Thanks Dave, I owe you for that!) But apparently he knew, or he wouldn't have denied it for so long.
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 08:25 PM
Quote:
I don't understand some of the ridiculously low speedlimits in some of the rural areas, but I know if I choose to do 70 in a 50, I'm taking a chance on a ticket.
Do you feel that you should lose your license for life because you were going 70 in a 50 zone?
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 08:39 PM
Quote:
Why is it that any person, of legal age, can go to Vegas and bet on anything in the world, but just because you’re a coach you can't bet on baseball?
Because other people betting on baseball does not affect the integrity of the sport.
Don't you agree that baseball is free to set their rules and that their employees/players must abide by those rules or suffer the stated consequences. More importantly, he should be punished because Pete Rose: 1. agree to not bet on baseball when he became a player; 2. agreed to not bet on baseball when he became a coach; and 3. agreed to a lifetime ban when he got caught.
That is why he could not bet on baseball. And he knew that. And he knew the consequences. Regardless of the logic of the rule (which I think is logical), it was his employer's rule and he violated it.
Get over yourself! (Ray?)
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 08:47 PM
Quote:
I don't think he should have been punished at all.
I am shocked that anyone can believe this! The most valuable asset baseball has is its integrity. Whether you are Ted Williams playing a double-header on the last day of the season despite the fact it risks your .400 season, or the manager of a last place team playing to win during the last series of the season against an opponent in a pennant race, baseball has always held the integrity of the game above all. Pete Rose knew the rules, knew the consequences (they're posted in the clubhouse in every ballpark), and violated them anyway. His offense is a stain not just on himself, but on the game.
BTW - I never liked his whole "hustle" schtick of sprinting to first base after a walk, because it looked to me like he was trying to show up other players. I wish he had pulled a muscle on one of those sprints.
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 08:51 PM
I don't disagree that he should not be punished for breaking the rules. I do disagree that the rules are in place to begin with. I understand that they are there so players are not tempted to compromise their integrity. If you can't trust your player's integrity then you need to reevaluate who you allow to play.
The Pete Rose problem is that he has already been banned from playing or coaching baseball for life. Why should he not be let into the Hall of Fame? If I remember correctly there are a few corked bats in there already.
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 08:59 PM
Quote:
His offense is a stain not just on himself, but on the game.
Wow. I would go as far as to it was a stain on the game. The American people are intelligent, despite what I've seen during audits, to differentiate between the actions of an individual and that of an entire sport.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 09:09 PM
Quote:
I don't think he should have been punished at all. Had he bet against his team then lost, there may have been some controversy.
I agree he should not have lied about it, but come on people get over yourselves.
Quote:
I don't disagree that he should not be punished for breaking the rules. I do disagree that the rules are in place to begin with.
I can't follow all this - are you changing your opinion? Also, I don't understand the double negative in the second post - do you agree that he should be punished or are you in disagreement?
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 09:17 PM
Sorry, ending a long day.
Things I agree with:
-Break the rules, be punished.
Things I don't agree with:
-The fact that the "no gambling" rules exist.
-Not being allowed to be in the Hall of Fame, even though you've earned it.
-Lying about gambling.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 09:21 PM
Pete got to play the game he loved, made more money in a year than most of us make in a lifetime, lied about almost everything, and then thinks saving he is sorry wipes the plate clean. I think his timing sucked, taking the attention away from two worthy Hall of Famers in ECK and Molitor. Funny that his book came out the same time. I think he is a desperate man, for money and desperate to try to get into the Hall for his legacy. There are some folks in the Hall that certainly weren't the best citizens, but Pete knew the rules. He agreed with the punishment, now he must live with it. Shoeless Joe never even got his fighting chance, why should Rose.
Posted By: JacF
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 09:24 PM
Quote:
I think he is a desperate man, for money
Are you suggesting that his annual stint of getting dropped on his head by Kane at some WWE event isn't enough to sustain him financially? 
Posted By: DawgFan
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 09:39 PM
RANT WARNING
Well, the "no gambling" rules exist so that no coach or player takes actions during a game that would help him win his bet. I used to watch pro wrestling. It got real boring, because there are only so many ways to present the same thing. While the matches aren't necessarily scripted move for move, the general direction of the program is. That's what we'd get if we allowed players and coaches of sports to bet on the sports they play. While not scripted, players and coaches would make decisions based upon whether or not they win their bets. I'd rather see Steve Bartman pluck a foul ball out of the air, or a football take a weird bounce and influence the outcome of a game, than watch a game knowing some fat, money grubbing, moron made a decision just because he placed a bet in Vegas. Pete Rose says he didn't bet against the Reds. I don't believe him. He lied for fourteen years. He agreed to his punishment. Now he thinks it unfair. Sure, he earned a spot in the Hall of Fame. His records are there, so his accomplishments have been noted.
I used to enjoy watching baseball. Then we had the strike in the nineties. Now, I don't watch anymore, except maybe during the World Series. I think they need to stick to their guns here. I'm sorry Pete, it's what you agreed to. You can be forgiven, but forgiveness doesn't always mean absence of consequences.
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 09:55 PM
How about this for a scenario for managers to stay away from betting on baseball:
Pete Rose bets on his last place team to beat the first place team. The first place team's manager reaches an agreement with Mr. Rose to do what he can to lose the game for a share of the winnings. Its just one out of 162 games--the first place manager thinks he can afford to lose one game for a split of a mega-bucks bet.
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 09:58 PM
Quote:
RANT WARNING
Well, the "no gambling" rules exist so that no coach or player takes actions during a game that would help him win his bet.
I understand that, but let me reiterate what I said earlier.
Quote:
I understand that they are there so players are not tempted to compromise their integrity. If you can't trust your player's integrity then you need to reevaluate who you allow to play.
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 10:01 PM
Are we all auditors? It seems that everybody has a thieves mind, but a saint’s heart.
Posted By: Pup
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 10:06 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I don't understand some of the ridiculously low speedlimits in some of the rural areas, but I know if I choose to do 70 in a 50, I'm taking a chance on a ticket.
I would if the law provided that a lifelong suspense was the penalty for it. Also, does going 70 in a 50 compromise the validity or honor of driving?
Do you feel that you should lose your license for life because you were going 70 in a 50 zone?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 10:08 PM
Quote:
Things I don't agree with:
-The fact that the "no gambling" rules exist.
I'm about to decide that you're not serious about this.
On the chance that you are, try this:
"Rule 21(d), which is posted in every major league clubhouse, warns that any person "who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible." In '91 the Hall of Fame established a rule that any person on the ineligible list cannot be considered for election to the Hall of Fame."
-From CNNSI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2002/12/17/bb/)
Further, Rule 21 states that anyone betting on baseball (even in a game they are not involved in) is subject to a one-year suspension.
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 10:22 PM
I really don't care about the plight of Pete, but I do have something against judgmental people. I do not necessarily include anyone here in that group. Most of you are just expressing your opinions, which is great.
I know that rules and laws are set forth to protect the society, whether it be USA or sports fans, as a whole, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of rules/laws set forth by those in power.
Bravo to all those who have the courage to express what they believe, but don't shut your mind off to the opinions of others just because they differ from yours.
Anyway, I hope I have not offended anyone. OOh look ate the time, Its Miller, well actually Guinness, time. A pleasant day to all and to all a good night.
Peace out.
Hey itsme.. does your ending quote of "Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari" translate into "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"?? Or am I just totally wrong??
Posted By: itsme
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 10:23 PM
Quote:
Hey itsme.. does your ending quote of "Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari" translate into "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"?? Or am I just totally wrong??
You hit chuck right on the nose. 
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 10:28 PM
The only thing I find offensive is Pete's haircut.
Quote:
Quote:
Hey itsme.. does your ending quote of "Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari" translate into "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"?? Or am I just totally wrong??
You hit chuck right on the nose.
Well alright!! lol
I'm not a baseball fan, but have a question. Pete now admits he bet, but never against his own team. Is that kinda like smoking marijuana, but not inhaling?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 11:43 PM
Yes, and lying about it for the last 14 years has been kind of like wagging his finger and saying "I did not have gambling relations with that bookie."
Posted By: Ted Dreyer
Re: Pete Rose - 01/07/04 11:50 PM
Quote:
I think that Pete Rose should be allowed in the Hall of Fame about 80 years after they let Shoeless Joe Jackson into the Hall. From everything that I know, Jackson was possibly innocent or at least didn't throw off his performance to throw the Black Sox series.
I agree completely. Not only that but Jackson was a MUCH better baseball player than Rose (he has the third highest batting average in the history of baseball at almost .350 - Rose is way down the list at .301) and is not in the Hall. Either you only consider the quality of play or you consider everything including character issues. If baseball is going to allow Rose in, then Jackson should go in first.
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 02:12 PM
Quote:
If baseball is going to allow Rose in, then Jackson should go in first.
Yes, particularly since there was apparently little or no evidence against Jackson and he vehemently denied it.
Posted By: thomasj
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 02:17 PM
While I don't watch baseball anymore (strikes ruined that for me) I was a huge fan in the 70's when Rose played. I did not like him as a player or later as a manager. I always felt he was an arrogant weasle.
I am glad he is being held out of the Hall of Fame because I think that it time that we quit holding people who are corupt and have no morals as heroes. I think that it is a sad state of affairs when a society excuses and holds up as heroes and role models people who are drug users, wife beaters, people who commit adultry, and even rapists because of their athletic ability.
Here is a thought, what about the guy/gal who puts in 40+ hours a week for 50 years to earn a living to support his/her family, who loves and respects his/her spouse, and raises his/her children to be honest hard working members of society, why don't we hold these people up as role models and heroes? If you want my opinion, I think these people should be called "Charlie Hustle" they have earned it more than some spoiled overpaid crybaby/hasbeen who can't just fade into the sunset.
Posted By: Don_Narup
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 02:32 PM
Pete Rose was indebted to organized crime for over $500,000 due to gambleing. Did he bet against his team "probably". He put himself and baseball in a position where the fix could be in at anytime.
His greed, egotisism and lack of character and contrition has no place in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Did he play well? Yes, but it should take more than good reflexes and muscle coordination to be a Hall of Famer.
He is a champion Liar and certainly qualifies for awards in that arena.
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 03:11 PM
Lest we forget:
Rose pleaded guilty in April 1990 to two counts of filing false income taxes for failing to report $354,968 in income from autograph appearances, memorabilia sales and gambling. He served five months at a federal prison in Marion, Ill., and three months in a halfway house.
Posted By: hobot
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 05:00 PM
Go Don, Go TomasJ, Go Z! I agree. We all wonder why "society" has no morals now -- its because we put up with this type of stuff like Rose pulled for years - and he WAS arrogant about it!
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 05:10 PM
He should just get over it and run for President--he is overqualified.
Posted By: deppfan
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 06:01 PM
Quote:
He should just get over it and run for President--he is overqualified.
You beat me to it Z. (we make fun, but it is really sad!)
Posted By: Skunk Boy
Re: Pete Rose - 01/08/04 10:31 PM
Excerpt from Pete Rose's book (actually, I just read the SI part from the book.....that's all I need to read):
"I was aware of my record and my place in baseball history. But I was never aware of bounaries or able to contraol that part of my life. And admitting that I was out of control has been next to impossible for me. I was aware of my priveleges, but not my responsibilities."
"I've had 14 years to think about the rules. Rule 21 is there to prevent even the appearance of corruption as well as actual corruption. My actions, which I thought were benign, called the integrity of the game into question. And there's no excuse for that, but there's also no reason to punish me forever."
Posted By: Creditcop
Re: Pete Rose - 01/09/04 05:59 PM
It is disgusting to me that Pete is going to profit in the form of a book with his "apology". It sounds to me that Pete is playing a victim role and isn't sorry, just sorry he got caught. I don't think that he understands the seriousness of his actions. He was betting with inside information (calling other managers asking about their playes for that day's game).
Lying for 14 years, what an example. Make him an example--no Hall of Fame and do not let him back in the game. It is time for words to mean things---lifetime ban, means YOUR lifetime Pete.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Pete Rose - 01/09/04 06:51 PM
Pete's a lying, gambling, disgusting, arrogant, whiny baby!
...and he's also a hall of famer whether elected or not!!!
Posted By: zaibatsu
Re: Pete Rose - 01/10/04 12:27 AM
You know I think 14 years would have been enough punishment if he'd been telling the truth for 14 years. But he has been lying for 14 years and now want immediate reinstatement by now telling the truth. And telling it only because he has something to gain.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Pete Rose - 01/10/04 04:17 AM
Quote:
... I do have something against judgmental people.
Why is it that your opinion is just that, an opinion, but someone else's opinion that differs from yours is being "judgmental"? I really don't understand how you can say that there is nothing wrong with a manager or ball player betting on the sport that they work in. Even if they don't bet against their own team, what about when they owe money to certain bookies? Do you really think that they wouldn't ask them to throw a game or reduce the winning margin in order to clear their tab? I really do respect your opinion, and you have a right to it. I just don't understand your reasoning.
Posted By: JacF
Re: Pete Rose - 03/04/04 02:56 AM