Manfred and the lifetime banning of Pete Rose

[Kimmi]

I am all for someone being punished for having broken a rule or law.

 

I agree that if someone breaks a rule or a law, they should face the consequences. Perhaps in this case, the rule needs to be changed?

 

Did Rose bet against his own team and in any way try to throw any games? If so, then that undermines the integrity of the sport and is unforgivable. However, if he was just betting on other games, then I say let the guy back into baseball.

 

I think the guys who cheat by illegally using PEDs are much worse.

[mvp 78]

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/08/why-pete-rose-still-cant-be-absolved/378866/

 

Rose’s betting slips, written in his own handwriting, as well as other evidence, indicate that he only bet on certain Reds’ games.

 

Why does that matter? He may not have been betting on all the games, but he still wanted to win every game.

 

It matters for two reasons. First, when Rose did not bet on the Reds, his inaction was a signal to his bookies that he wasn’t very confident in that game. Those bookies may have used this inside information to place a bet against the Reds. This doesn’t mean the game was fixed, but is reflective of Rose’s state of mind. He was compromised. Second, his wager on certain games, but not others, may have influenced the way he made decisions as a manager.

 

What do you mean?

 

If he had a wager on that night’s game, he could be more inclined to burn through his bullpen in a less-than-optimal way. He may have used pinch hitters and pinch runners differently. In an all-out-effort to win a single wagered-upon game, he could, in turn, be sacrificing the team’s chances in a number of future games. Similarly, in games where he didn’t bet at all, he may rest certain players so they are fresh in the next game, when he was wagering on the Reds.

[Spudboy]

Yup. He cheated.

[cp176]

I wonder if any of the players in the NFL play fantasy football for $? I don't really wonder.

[Kimmi]

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/08/why-pete-rose-still-cant-be-absolved/378866/

 

Rose’s betting slips, written in his own handwriting, as well as other evidence, indicate that he only bet on certain Reds’ games.

 

Why does that matter? He may not have been betting on all the games, but he still wanted to win every game.

 

It matters for two reasons. First, when Rose did not bet on the Reds, his inaction was a signal to his bookies that he wasn’t very confident in that game. Those bookies may have used this inside information to place a bet against the Reds. This doesn’t mean the game was fixed, but is reflective of Rose’s state of mind. He was compromised. Second, his wager on certain games, but not others, may have influenced the way he made decisions as a manager.

 

What do you mean?

 

If he had a wager on that night’s game, he could be more inclined to burn through his bullpen in a less-than-optimal way. He may have used pinch hitters and pinch runners differently. In an all-out-effort to win a single wagered-upon game, he could, in turn, be sacrificing the team’s chances in a number of future games. Similarly, in games where he didn’t bet at all, he may rest certain players so they are fresh in the next game, when he was wagering on the Reds.

 

This author brings up some very valid points. Even if Rose wasn't conscious of managing differently in games he bet on, probably did subconsciously, to some extent. It appears that he compromised the integrity of the game, so I can understand why his lifetime ban has not been lifted.

[mvp 78]

If Rose hadn't thumbed his nose at MLB and the HOF for the past 30 years, he'd be in already. He probably has no need for contrition since he makes a good deal of money signing autographs even without being in the HOF. He probably doesn't really care about getting in and only appeals the decision every so often just to keep his name relevant.

[Youk Of The Nation]

If Rose hadn't thumbed his nose at MLB and the HOF for the past 30 years, he'd be in already. He probably has no need for contrition since he makes a good deal of money signing autographs even without being in the HOF. He probably doesn't really care about getting in and only appeals the decision every so often just to keep his name relevant.

 

Given how much Rose put into being a great baseball player, I'd have to disagree wholeheartedly with everything you just said. Between interviews with Rose, the books he has written, the interviews with his contemporaries, both players and managers, and the endless media attention surrounding the issue, I have absolutely no doubt that Pete Rose wants to be in the Hall of Fame. Not wanting to be in the Hall would be the very antithesis of the type of baseball player he was for over two decades.

[GomesBeard]

2 separate issues here. One is that MLB has banned him from the game, which is fine. The other is the HOF rule that anyone on MLB's ineligible list, is therefore ineligible to be in the HOF. That should change. MLB can continue to ban him and I'm fine with that. But I think he belongs in the HOF. If only to see his wife at the induction ceremony.....

 

https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/pete-rose-kiana-kim.jpg?w=1000

 

I haven't made up my mind on the PED guys yet, but do think that Mike Piazza should be in....

[Spudboy]

So Rose has some Yoko Ono action going. Did not know that.

 

She has a decidedly high center of gravity.

[a700hitter]

Dennis Eckersley isn’t about to welcome Pete Rose to Cooperstown

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/01/06/dennis-eckersley-isnt-about-to-welcome-pete-rose-to-cooperstown/

[Bellhorn04]

The Reds are inducting him into the team's Hall of Fame.

[Sandlot]

I don’t see how anyone can defend Pete Rose with regard to his banishment from baseball. It’s simple. After the 1919 World Series, baseball was proven to be corrupt and instantly risked illegitimacy only to become viewed as a sporting exhibition much like Harlem globetrotters and professional wrestling are today. The commissioner acted quickly and implemented MLB rule 21. This rule effectively states any player, umpire, or club, league official or employee, 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.

 

Anyone connected directly to MLB at any level see’s this rule posted in the clubhouse in every ballpark and office. This includes lowest level of minor league play. No player, umpire, manager or coach can claim ignorance of this rule. Each player, manager, umpire etc… must acknowledge their understanding of this rule and agreement to this policy in writing every year. The bottom line is Pete Rose knew the rule and willingly chose to break it. John Dowd’s report proved beyond any possible doubt that Pete Rose bet on MLB baseball games.

 

MLB can’t risk another black sox scandal and if they don’t uphold this position, is anyone ever responsible for their actions? Ever?

 

I ask Kimmi and others to take the counter on this argument. Love the hear it but let’s not just counter with “Rose is an old man and has 4000 hits so just let’s give him a pass on this”

[Spudboy]

Unfortunately MLB has gotten into bed with Draft Kings and the like. This makes them giant hypocrites in the eyes of those who view the subject objectively.

 

Ban participation in gambling with one rule, then invite gambling into the game with Fantasy betting.

 

I make no distinction when defining what constitutes gambling.

 

The entire subject is nauseating.

[Sandlot]

I agree Spudboy, I feel the same way about State and Municipal governments promoting lottery systems designed to steal from the folks that can least afford it. Regarding MLB, rule 21 is specifically for MLB employees and on field participants so the general public can do what they want in Vegas or in Fantasy but your discomfort with the alignment between MLB and Draft Kings et al is understandable.

[Bellhorn04]

Unfortunately MLB has gotten into bed with Draft Kings and the like. This makes them giant hypocrites in the eyes of those who view the subject objectively.

 

Ban participation in gambling with one rule, then invite gambling into the game with Fantasy betting.

 

I make no distinction when defining what constitutes gambling.

 

The entire subject is nauseating.

 

I agree, the hypocrisy is incredible. DraftKings and FanDuel are obviously gambling, and they are taking a lot of suckers' money, based on the amount of advertising they've been doing.

[Kimmi]

I don’t see how anyone can defend Pete Rose with regard to his banishment from baseball. It’s simple. After the 1919 World Series, baseball was proven to be corrupt and instantly risked illegitimacy only to become viewed as a sporting exhibition much like Harlem globetrotters and professional wrestling are today. The commissioner acted quickly and implemented MLB rule 21. This rule effectively states any player, umpire, or club, league official or employee, 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.

 

Anyone connected directly to MLB at any level see’s this rule posted in the clubhouse in every ballpark and office. This includes lowest level of minor league play. No player, umpire, manager or coach can claim ignorance of this rule. Each player, manager, umpire etc… must acknowledge their understanding of this rule and agreement to this policy in writing every year. The bottom line is Pete Rose knew the rule and willingly chose to break it. John Dowd’s report proved beyond any possible doubt that Pete Rose bet on MLB baseball games.

 

MLB can’t risk another black sox scandal and if they don’t uphold this position, is anyone ever responsible for their actions? Ever?

 

I ask Kimmi and others to take the counter on this argument. Love the hear it but let’s not just counter with “Rose is an old man and has 4000 hits so just let’s give him a pass on this”

 

I'm not sure I have a good counter argument on this Sandlot. Honestly, I'm not even sure where I stand on this. I completely understand the seriousness of a player or manager betting on games. The integrity of the game is at stake.

 

I'm wondering if gambling is an honest addiction for Rose, or if Rose just thought he was "above the law" and gambled for fun. Also, I have recently read that Rose denied and lied about gambling on Reds' games for the longest time, then only came clean when he was trying to make a quick buck with a tell all book. That doesn't sit well with me.

 

That said, it's been 25 years and perhaps he has served his time for the crime. It's not like he is being given a free pass.

[a700hitter]

I'm not sure I have a good counter argument on this Sandlot. Honestly, I'm not even sure where I stand on this. I completely understand the seriousness of a player or manager betting on games. The integrity of the game is at stake.

 

I'm wondering if gambling is an honest addiction for Rose, or if Rose just thought he was "above the law" and gambled for fun. Also, I have recently read that Rose denied and lied about gambling on Reds' games for the longest time, then only came clean when he was trying to make a quick buck with a tell all book. That doesn't sit well with me.

 

That said, it's been 25 years and perhaps he has served his time for the crime. It's not like he is being given a free pass.

I am not sure whether he should be banned or not, but letting him in after 25 years isn't like serving a sentence. It doesn't matter whether a player becomes a Hall of Famer on the first ballot or by vote of the old timers committee. They all receive the same distinction. If the baseball establishment decides that Rose needs to be punished, it has to be a lifetime ban-- a delay is not a punishment.

[Kimmi]

I am not sure whether he should be banned or not, but letting him in after 25 years isn't like serving a sentence. It doesn't matter whether a player becomes a Hall of Famer on the first ballot or by vote of the old timers committee. They all receive the same distinction. If the baseball establishment decides that Rose needs to be punished, it has to be a lifetime ban-- a delay is not a punishment.

 

I'm not sure if he should be reinstated or not either, but I disagree that 25 years is not a punishment. That's 25 years that he was not able to be part of the game in any capacity. Even if he were inducted into the HOF, his gambling and his 25 year punishment will always be a cloud over his legacy.

[a700hitter]

I'm not sure if he should be reinstated or not either, but I disagree that 25 years is not a punishment. That's 25 years that he was not able to be part of the game in any capacity. Even if he were inducted into the HOF, his gambling and his 25 year punishment will always be a cloud over his legacy.

He has made a career out of being an outcast by selling memorabilia like crazy, mainly in Las Vegas- because he is a degenerate gambler. There is gambling for fun and then there are degenerate gamblers. Rose has always been a degenerate gambler. He did not play fantasy sports or bet some games for fun. He bets on everything and anything. He would bet on a cockroach race. That is why he has never been reinstated. His gambling was and still is out of control. I do agree that being banned from getting a job in baseball has been a punishment, but a delay in making the HOF is not a punishment.

[Kimmi]

He has made a career out of being an outcast by selling memorabilia like crazy, mainly in Las Vegas- because he is a degenerate gambler. There is gambling for fun and then there are degenerate gamblers. Rose has always been a degenerate gambler. He did not play fantasy sports or bet some games for fun. He bets on everything and anything. He would bet on a cockroach race. That is why he has never been reinstated. His gambling was and still is out of control. I do agree that being banned from getting a job in baseball has been a punishment, but a delay in making the HOF is not a punishment.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "degenerate" gambler, but gambling can be an addiction. It sounds like he was addicted to it. Breaking an addiction is much easier said than done. I wonder if he ever sought help for this addiction, if it indeed is an addiction.

[a700hitter]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "degenerate" gambler, but gambling can be an addiction. It sounds like he was addicted to it. Breaking an addiction is much easier said than done. I wonder if he ever sought help for this addiction, if it indeed is an addiction.

I doubt that he has sought help. If you put down stakes in Vegas, you are not interested in giving up gambling. He is pulling down a ton of money each year from personal appearances Vegas, and his gambling has never caused him financial hardship, so he probably doesn't think it is a problem except for his baseball ban which he probably attributes to bad luck in getting caught. That is how degenerate gamblers think.

[Maxbialystock]

I think what Rose did was unforgivable, simple as that. It is and was the one golden rule simply because the Black Sox almost destroyed MLB. Rose not only bet on games, but then lied and lied and lied. He does not have a contrite bone in his body. Indeed, I think he believes he is bigger than baseball. Before the gambling story broke, I was a huge Rose fan because he was both a great hitter and a great leader (on the Reds and on the Phillies).

[Slasher9]

I think what Rose did was unforgivable, simple as that. It is and was the one golden rule simply because the Black Sox almost destroyed MLB. Rose not only bet on games, but then lied and lied and lied. He does not have a contrite bone in his body. Indeed, I think he believes he is bigger than baseball. Before the gambling story broke, I was a huge Rose fan because he was both a great hitter and a great leader (on the Reds and on the Phillies).

 

yup. the one thing that is posted in every single clubhouse in the Major Leagues:

[Youk Of The Nation]

Am I the only one who finds it kind of ridiculous that the clauses (which are generally written in complicated, airtight legalese that covers every possible eventuality) that forbid gambling and physical violence are the same length? And that the "no bribing umpires" section is twice the length of either of them?