Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Pete Rose has apparently applied for reinstatement to baseball.

Sorry, Pete, but it's called Rule 21.D. It's posted in every major league clubhouse.

Any player, umpire, or club or 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.

Please, Commissioner Manfred, do the right thing and tell him to suck ventworm balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I awful for thinking that since people born in the late Generation X period onward probably think he should be reinstalled, that about 20 years from now if you ask people born since about the late 80s onward they'll say stars of the steroid era should get in to the Hall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I awful for thinking that since people born in the late Generation X period onward probably think he should be reinstalled, that about 20 years from now if you ask people born since about the late 80s onward they'll say stars of the steroid era should get in to the Hall?

Count me as a boomer who thinks he should be reinstalled before the Steroid Kings. I am well aware I'm in the minority.

I've never seen the big deal of betting on your own team; if someone can convince me he ever bet against his own team, I'll capitulate.

He's paid a big, big price for gambling - probably bigger than anyone I've ever heard of (other than people who have lost everything), and he had one hell of a baseball career, and was a fierce competitor.

I compare what he did to people in the NFL getting slaps on the wrist for committing felonies, and I just don't see it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the difference for Rose vs. the steroid-era guys is that you could argue that he should be in the Hall for his time as a player.

Kibbee, I understand you completely, though.  There is a "These are the rules" vs. "Give him a break" issue.

I think you could argue the same for Bonds and Clemens (maybe a few others), pre-steroids, but the burden of proof (about when they started to take them) should be on them, not us. What a mess they made of the game!

Even if Rose is reinstated, the voters are older, and are unlikely to change their minds about the Hall of Fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what the younger folk are forgetting is, exactly, why gambling among players and/or management was such an anathema to the sports powers-that-be. It was the fear that organized crime (which ran the gambling operations, for the most part) would gain a foothold into the operations of the sport and use that entry to distort the game(s) to their financial advantage. Heck, I even remember when the great Paul Hornung got suspended for involvement in gambling back in the 1960s.

Pete Rose was found to have gambled on the team he was managing. Sure, he always bet that they would win; but, what would happen if his losses mounted up? This was the real stupidity of his actions. Yes, he was a great player and played during the time when he didn't make the kind of money great players today make.

Still, he has also shown himself in the succeeding years to be as dumb as a box of rocks. There is no way he will be allowed back into baseball in any capacity and there is also nothing he could bring to the proceedings that many, many other just as talented people couldn't also bring--without the baggage.

What he did was simply unforgivable and there are people who can influence the outcome who will out-live him. There it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, he always bet that they would win; but, what would happen if his losses mounted up? 

I'm not going to be argumentative about this - people have already made up their minds; I'd only say that for this one point, losses could mount up from anything.

Back when I was an athlete, I would have bet on myself. I think a better argument than the "losses mounting up" scenario (aside from the organized crime factor) is if he, for example, did what Mike Shanahan (Dan Snyder?) did with RGIII - keeping him in a game too long when he was injured because he was so desperate to win, which hurt the team in the long run.

(Trivia: Both Mantle and Mays were banned from MLB under Bowie Kuhn for associating with a casino after they retired).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you could argue the same for Bonds and Clemens (maybe a few others), pre-steroids, but the burden of proof (about when they started to take them) should be on them, not us. What a mess they made of the game!

Even if Rose is reinstated, the voters are older, and are unlikely to change their minds about the Hall of Fame.

For someone like Bonds, seeing him pre-and-post-steroids, there is a huge difference (pardon the pun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone like Bonds, seeing him pre-and-post-steroids, there is a huge difference (pardon the pun).

To quote The Terminator 2 in the gun store: "All."

Incidentally, I've always respected Schwarzanegger coming right out and admitting PEDs from day one. 'I'd use them again, if I thought they'd help me,' he said. Refreshing, and didn't hurt anybody except arguably his fellow competitors (who were all doing it too).

Homo Sapiens are several centuries, if not millenia, away from being able to obtain the physique of Lee Haney without PEDs, and yes, I'm saying Lee Haney took steroids like a racehorse. In fact, just like a racehorse. Like Secretariat, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to be argumentative about this - people have already made up their minds; I'd only say that for this one point, losses could mount up from anything.

Back when I was an athlete, I would have bet on myself. I think a better argument than the "losses mounting up" scenario (aside from the organized crime factor) is if he, for example, did what Mike Shanahan (Dan Snyder?) did with RGIII - keeping him in a game too long when he was injured because he was so desperate to win, which hurt the team in the long run.

(Trivia: Both Mantle and Mays were banned from MLB under Bowie Kuhn for associating with a casino after they retired).

I agree with you & think he should be reinstated.  However, there are some good reasons that betting on your own team is problematic.  Its not an individual sport and he's not betting on himself.  His decisions as a Manager may have an adverse effect on others.  If he has a lot riding on a particular game, would he take out a starter so as not to risk his arm for the rest of the season?  Would he throw at an opposing batter more aggressively?  Lots of things a Manager could make decisions on that reflect the need to win a specific game vs. win a championship.  Again, I'm not opposed to reinstating him but, basically, because I'm a cynic and think that there are always illegal things going on at all times and that this rule is almost the "jaywalking" of baseball.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who has actually read the Dowd Report will realize that Rose broke the ultimate rule -- Rule 21.D.

Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from the game permanently for gambling on games in which he participated. There are no exceptions for gambling on games in which you are a participant or an umpire. Baseball almost imploded in the 1919 Black Sox scandal and it took the iron fist of Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis and the Herculean performance of Babe Ruth to save the game from the brink of disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Rose did was imo very far from what the White Sox did in 1919. He's been punished long enough,and I agree that he should have been punished. He should not have lied about his gambling and connections to some shady characters and drugs.

On the other hand, his records still stand in the Hall of Fame, and he's featured prominently on displays about the Big Red Machine. He just doesn't have a plaque on the wall of fame.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts.

First, full disclosure on my own bias. Pete Rose was my favorite player growing up for three simple reasons. He was really, really good. He hustled his butt off. And, he was a key part of the Big Red Machine that won one of the best Series of the modern era in '75 and then rolled the Yankees the next year. I've had opportunity to meet him a couple of times. As awful a role model he has been since banishment, he was and is that good of a role model of how to play the game.

Bias aside, I'm in the reinstatement camp for three reasons.

1. Clearly his playing performance was untainted and he is the All-Time MLB hits leader. Looking at that myopically, it's just silly he isn't in Cooperstown.
2. The gambling rule, which he clearly violated, seems surely less worse than the many allowances made in baseball and football for steroid abusers (on-field cheaters) and even violent criminals. The Nats' current 2014 NL Manager of the Year skipper is the first manager in baseball who was named in the Mitchell Report.
3. After so much time, he falls into the forgive bucket for me while fully acknowledging he did play things very foolishly in the years following his banishment.

I agree with you & think he should be reinstated. However, there are some good reasons that betting on your own team is problematic. Its not an individual sport and he's not betting on himself. His decisions as a Manager may have an adverse effect on others. If he has a lot riding on a particular game, would he take out a starter so as not to risk his arm for the rest of the season? Would he throw at an opposing batter more aggressively? Lots of things a Manager could make decisions on that reflect the need to win a specific game vs. win a championship. Again, I'm not opposed to reinstating him but, basically, because I'm a cynic and think that there are always illegal things going on at all times and that this rule is almost the "jaywalking" of baseball.

Absolutely. If someone is convicted of armed robbery without hurting anyone, they go to prison for maybe 3-12 years. Then they get out and can start a new life on a better track having served their time. Rose didn't murder, maim or even seriously threaten the game as happened in 1919. He was wrong. He deserved to be punished severely. He has now served more than his time. Redemption should be possible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justified or not justified?

post-2-0-89348200-1426629668_thumb.png <--- I say justified - I don't think Rose was headhunting (the picture shows he was going low, not high), and I do think Fosse was blocking the plate. I think it was good, correctly done, hard-played baseball by two great players that resulted in a tragic injury (Fosse *should* have blocked the plate, and Rose *should* have done whatever he needed to do to reach it). I understand why Fosse is bitter, and empathize with him, but from a neutral viewpoint - and I like both players equally - I don't think Rose was intentionally trying to hurt him. Immediately after the play, Rose went over to check on him - I suspect his train (no pun intended) of thought was similar to one boxer knocking another one out, and then giving him a hand up after the bout was over: It's all part of the game, which is sometimes a contact sport (ask any second baseman).

(I do, however, object to Fox posing the question, "Was Pete Rose's collision with Ray Fosse the greatest moment in All-Star Game history? Cast *your* vote to decide at M-L-B-dot-com, slash-moments...." That's like asking if Lawrence Taylor taking out Joe Theismann was the greatest moment in NFL history (that video is here, but if you haven't seen it before, be warned that it's about as much fun as watching someone get their head cut off with a dull knife.))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justified given the rules of the day. Sports carry risks and Rose's intent wasn't to hurt Fosse so much as score and maybe send a message. Of course, that would be illegal today given the rule change which will still change more.

Fosse was blocking the plate. It's how the game was played then and Rose played it harder than anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't understand why the rule change for home plate and second base collisions was not changed sooner. The famous Rose-Fosse wipeout is just one of several gruesome incidents.

An irony is that Fosse and Rose were supposedly up all night before that All Star Game discussing baseball with each other, they were so hardcore into it and pretty good friends! You can see it in Rose's concern for his friend after the play, though the clip's editing just emphasizes Rose's competitiveness, so if you didn't know better it might look like Muhammad Ali gloating over a KO'd opponent. Might change the way you think of him. A shame it shortened Fosse's career; he was a good one!

Carl Hubbel's 1934 strikeouts probably remain the greatest feat in All Star History, and I also remember Reggie Jackson's incredible home run in Detroit that looked like a scene in The Natural, and an All Star game at the Astrodome with Willie Mays pretty much inventing the winning run with his base running, a la Jackie Robinson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justified or not justified?

That is a freaking unbelievable competitive collision in a game where typically most players don't try that hard.  I forgot about it.

In reading Fosse's description, he says he isn't bitter, and at the same time covers immense detail, leaving one to read between the lines....bitter or not???

What a horrid result in leaving Fosse with a long term problem.   Of course outside of a well publicized all star game that kind of thing occurs endlessly where in a meaningless game somebody suffers a horrid injury.  It must occur 10's of thousands of times every year.

What a bum situation; Fosse set up as he should have in a regular and meaningful game and really was entirely blocking the plate.   Rose was sprinting in, didn't seem to have a reasonable alternative and his competitive instincts led him to do what he would do naturally...barrel into the guy.  All that speed, momentum and force. ---->  Ooooooooooooofffffffffff

Meanwhile on the Rose to be reinstated or not issue-->   Has he completely apologized and completely come clean????   If he has, no ifs ands or buts and no wiggle room, then I'd consider reinstatement.  If not...I'd hold to the ban.

Players, coaches, owners, managers or anyone involved in games in any way should not bet.  It leads to the ruination of the game and other games.  I understand that professional tennis has been inundated with gamblers fixing matches wherein those players that have been referenced or implicated are lower rated pros.  There is no value to sports that have the fix.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who love Pete Rose think it was just his hard-nosed, all-out way of playing the game.

But as George Will once put it, this was an exhibition game, and Rose's "effort" was out of all proportion to the event. The play ruined Ray Fosse's career and life. In a way, it typified the "me above all else" mentality that led to his gambling addiction and his betting on games in which his own team was playing.

Rule 21.D. is the cardinal rule of baseball. It is boldly posted in every major league clubhouse. Dowd proved that Pete Rose bet on games he was managing, and he was about to determine that Rose bet on some of those games to lose, thereby throwing the games. The Dowd investigation was stopped before it got to that point, when Pete Rose agreed to the lifetime ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Boswell has a column in the WaPo today that speaks to all the issues. He lays out his case in precise detail and, of course, writes better than all of us put together:

You'll find no bigger Boswell fan than I am, but he doesn't write better than all of us put together with a second paragraph like this:

"Now that everyone has kind of forgotten everything he did wrong and why he deserved what he got, could he please be reinstated to the game he disgraced?"

I stopped reading right there because he poisoned the well <--- just in case everyone has kind of forgotten what that means. Now, I'll go back and finish the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and he was about to determine that Rose bet on some of those games to lose, thereby throwing the games. The Dowd investigation was stopped before it got to that point, when Pete Rose agreed to the lifetime ban.

That would certainly make me change my mind about HOF, if it turned out that Rose did throw games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would certainly make me change my mind about HOF, if it turned out that Rose did throw games.

If you read what Boswell wrote, he considers this scenario: Rose had bet on his team to win and he used up his bull pen to that end. Having tired out the bull pen, he doesn't bet on the next game, because they may not be able to save the game with all those tired arms.

How is this substantially different from "throwing" a game?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a better argument than the "losses mounting up" scenario (aside from the organized crime factor) is if he, for example, did what Mike Shanahan (Dan Snyder?) did with RGIII - keeping him in a game too long when he was injured because he was so desperate to win, which hurt the team in the long run.

If you read what Boswell wrote, he considers this scenario: Rose had bet on his team to win and he used up his bull pen to that end. Having tired out the bull pen, he doesn't bet on the next game, because they may not be able to save the game with all those tired arms.

How is this substantially different from "throwing" a game?

It was a good example, wasn't it. ;)

But as long as I threw out poisoning the well, I may as well trot out prima facie and post hoc ergo propter hoc, both of which apply in this example.

I would like to see some evidence that Rose bet against his team. Regardless, I think Tom B's article largely condemned the prisoner to a death sentence while at the same time gift wrapping the sentence - there is no way Rose will be voted into the Hall of Fame during his lifetime. The voters are old and grizzled, and are most certainly not part of the younger generation that doesn't care as much about the gambling - if he's ever inducted, it will be after his lifetime, when the current voters die out, and a new crop replaces them.

This is about as productive as arguing over the best hamburger or pizza - everyone sits around shouting at each other, not saying anything new, and not one person has changed their mind. We may as well be discussing gun rights or abortion - people are locked into a mindset, almost as if this had something to do with religion. My way is the only way! So there!

If there are any older Cincinnati fans here, it would be really refreshing to discuss some aspects of Rose during his playing days. When the Orioles played the Reds in the 1970 World Series, both he and Johnny Bench were like aliens from another planet to me (I was nine years old, and the American League didn't play the National League in the regular season). Both of them scared the crap out of me - Bench, with his ability to hold something like nine baseballs in one hand; Rose, with the way he went all out on every play, even a walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see some evidence that Rose bet against his team.

 

Rose has claimed that he never bet against his team. As far as I know, there's no evidence to contradict that. Doesn't make one whit of difference, either.  He has admitted to betting on his team. To get inducted into HOF--while still being banned from all baseball operations--it will require a change in the rules. Since this rule was written specifically with Rose in mind, I don't see anybody voting to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't make one whit of difference, either.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

For those keeping score, if you take an objective count of the people who have expressed an opinion on this thread (some have remained non-committal), the tally is:

5 Reinstate - 2 Ban.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ...

This is about as productive as arguing over the best hamburger or pizza - everyone sits around shouting at each other, not saying anything new, and not one person has changed their mind. We may as well be discussing gun rights or abortion - people are locked into a mindset, almost as if this had something to do with religion. My way is the only way! So there!

 ...

As a lifelong Reds fan, I agree...with the above excerpt. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read what Boswell wrote, he considers this scenario: Rose had bet on his team to win and he used up his bull pen to that end. Having tired out the bull pen, he doesn't bet on the next game, because they may not be able to save the game with all those tired arms.

How is this substantially different from "throwing" a game?

Not having your bullpen ready is equal to or substantially the same as throwing a game deliberately or betting on your team to lose? How so? Managers mess up their bullpen's readiness all the time, usually through unwise overuse or sometimes underutilization. It's not even close to throwing a game, imo. His team can still win by scoring the most runs the next day, with or without relievers. This is not at all like what the White Sox did when they deliberately lost the World Series by sabotage. They threw to the wrong base, made bone headed plays, etc. It was not even very subtle. On the other hand, I do not think people are going to say "This game has no integrity! The manager is setting up his team to lose tomorrow by trying hard to win today!" They try hard everyday!

Anyway, feel free to delete my post, moderators, if you feel that the discussion is over.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having your bullpen ready is equal to or substantially the same as throwing a game deliberately or betting on your team to lose? How so? Managers mess up their bullpen's readiness all the time, usually through unwise overuse or sometimes underutilization. It's not even close to throwing a game, imo. His team can still win by scoring the most runs the next day, with or without relievers. This is not at all like what the White Sox did when they deliberately lost the World Series by sabotage. They threw to the wrong base, made bone headed plays, etc. It was not even very subtle. On the other hand, I do not think people are going to say "This game has no integrity! The manager is setting up his team to lose tomorrow by trying hard to win today!" They try hard everyday!

Anyway, feel free to delete my post, moderators, if you feel that the discussion is over.

Totally agree, MC. That said, the second level issue is really around determining intent. Burning a pen does happen all the time for innocent reasons thus could be a devious way to affect a subsequent day's game outcome.

That said, I've never believed Rose betted against his team. Hugely irresponsible and bad judgments but he was a player that always wanted to win. That obsession made for the easy but tragic rationalization that just betting on them to win was okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the ban side.  I was touched somewhat by I believe darkstar referencing what comes to the "quality of mercy".  I do believe baseball and other sports should hold extremely tight to rules against players, coaches, other personnel betting.

It ultimately soils the game.  All games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Meanwhile on the Rose to be reinstated or not issue-->   Has he completely apologized and completely come clean????   If he has, no ifs ands or buts and no wiggle room, then I'd consider reinstatement.  If not...I'd hold to the ban.

 ...

I'm on the ban side.  I was touched somewhat by I believe darkstar referencing what comes to the "quality of mercy".  I do believe baseball and other sports should hold extremely tight to rules against players, coaches, other personnel betting.

It ultimately soils the game.  All games.

You seem a bit torn about this? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem a bit torn about this? :-)

@darkstar: I believe it was you who referenced something along the lines of its "time to forgive" or something like that. Somebody upstream referenced that and I took note.

Other than applying the quality of forgiveness I believe he should be banned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having your bullpen ready is equal to or substantially the same as throwing a game deliberately or betting on your team to lose? How so? Managers mess up their bullpen's readiness all the time, usually through unwise overuse or sometimes underutilization. It's not even close to throwing a game, imo. His team can still win by scoring the most runs the next day, with or without relievers. This is not at all like what the White Sox did when they deliberately lost the World Series by sabotage. They threw to the wrong base, made bone headed plays, etc. It was not even very subtle. On the other hand, I do not think people are going to say "This game has no integrity! The manager is setting up his team to lose tomorrow by trying hard to win today!" They try hard everyday!

Anyway, feel free to delete my post, moderators, if you feel that the discussion is over.

Yeah, I have to agree with this....it's not just using your bullpen to excess, or going with (or even pulling) your starting pitcher, thus disturbing his next start, or using borderline injured players and pushing them to the disabled list, or all the other options available to a manager for the purpose of winning a bet but actually hurting the team. It's all of that, PLUS the fact that Dowd was called off when he was about to prove that Rose bet against his team to lose.

Put me firmy in the BAN column. Worse than PEDs, which attacked the integrity of the record books, gambling on games in which you have a responsibility to perform attacks the integrity of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have to agree with this....it's not just using your bullpen to excess, or going with (or even pulling) your starting pitcher, thus disturbing his next start, or using borderline injured players and pushing them to the disabled list, or all the other options available to a manager for the purpose of winning a bet but actually hurting the team. It's all of that, PLUS the fact that Dowd was called off when he was about to prove that Rose bet against his team to lose.

Put me firmy in the BAN column. Worse than PEDs, which attacked the integrity of the record books, gambling on games in which you have a responsibility to perform attacks the integrity of the game.

Thanks for the linked article, KN. Interesting reading. Unless I missed it though, not sure Dowd was "about to prove that Rose bet against his team." The quoted language is about insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion, attributed to Dowd. Whatever decision Manfred makes probably won't turn on that anyway since, either way, Rose clearly violated the rule.

The option to admit to Cooperstown but deny reinstatement to the game in all other ways makes the most sense to me. More or less Boswell's idea. None of this has anything to do with what he achieved as a player. His statistics stand. The all-time hits leader should have a plaque in Cooperstown imho. Simply because the hall is about recognizing the game's best players. As flawed and unethical a rule violator as he was, he was and remains one of the game's best players. Different from steroid users where the cheating impacted the playing results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The option to admit to Cooperstown but deny reinstatement to the game in all other ways makes the most sense to me. More or less Boswell's idea. 

This will never, ever happen, and Tom knows it won't - I have no idea why he wrote this suggestion.

[Kibbee, I didn't mean to bust your chops with my previous post; if you have any *new* information, i.e., stuff you haven't said before, please feel free to present it.]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will never, ever happen, and Tom knows it won't - I have no idea why he wrote this suggestion.

[Kibbee, I didn't mean to bust your chops with my previous post; if you have any *new* information, i.e., stuff you haven't said before, please feel free to present it.]

Agree it's a pretty unlikely scenario. Imagine Boz wrote it because...well...he believes it. It'd be a pragmatic resolution however unlikely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.   First betting...and then in a general sense manipulating outcomes on behalf of the big betters.   Be tough on betting and be tough on Rose.   Good find by outside the lines and tx for reporting KN.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule 21.D. was not written to provide for any exceptions.

Neither was the Missouri Compromise.

If I were a player, I'd bet on myself to win, too - in fact, I have, dozens of times, maybe hundreds of times, and it only made me play harder; Rose betting as a manager was a greater transgression due to the position of power he was in, and we already knew he did that.

This latest evidence only shows that Rose bet on the Reds to win; when something comes out that shows he bet to lose, and threw games, then I'll hold him at exactly the same level of esteem as I hold Sonny Liston and Bobby Riggs: great sportsmen who tanked matches for money.

"There's No Good Reason To Keep Barry Bonds Out of the Hall Of Fame" by Ted Berg on ftw.usatoday.com

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't bet on myself to lose ANY games. Anything I could possibly gain by throwing a game here or there would be way offset by the bonus money and extras awarded to the World Series victor, which is what I would always want to be! It's the raison d'etre.

If I were a player, I'd bet on myself to win, too -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprise, Pete Rose re-inventing the truth after the public finds out something else he can no longer lie about. First he "never bet on baseball", then he "bet on baseball but never on the teams he was a part of", then he "bet on teams he was a part of but only as a manager."

Now it's he "bet as a manager and player but never against himself or team".

His own hubris and continued defiance of any sort of accountability are the reasons he is not in the Hall of Fame. He is a liar and nothing he says about his betting history is credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's pretty damning! I am so disappointed because I believed he only bet while managing.

I've been reading a biography of him (more than halfway done, partway through the chapter on his son's playing career), and in the chapter on his quest to beat Ty Cobb's hit record in '85 there is an anecdote (sourced back to to his mother no less) indicating that he bet on the World Series in 1984 and lost a lot of money on it.  That didn't involve the Reds, but he was clearly betting while he was still playing (though he was also managing that year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprise, Pete Rose re-inventing the truth after the public finds out something else he can no longer lie about. First he "never bet on baseball", then he "bet on baseball but never on the teams he was a part of", then he "bet on teams he was a part of but only as a manager."

Now it's he "bet as a manager and player but never against himself or team".

His own hubris and continued defiance of any sort of accountability are the reasons he is not in the Hall of Fame. He is a liar and nothing he says about his betting history is credible.

Exactly. He is toast.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some will find this fascinating:

Marion, IL: "The Place Where Pete Rose and Ray Fosse Collide" by Steve Wulf on espn.go.com

Believe it or not, one of our members grew up in Marion, which is famous primarily for its federal penitentiary. Needless to say, a disproportionate percentage of its residents strongly dislike Pete Rose, who spent time in the prison there, and who knocked over their hometown hero in the all-star game (read the article - it really is fascinating).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete Rose has apparently applied for reinstatement to baseball.

Sorry, Pete, but it's called Rule 21.D. It's posted in every major league clubhouse.

Any player, umpire, or club or 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.

Please, Commissioner Manfred, do the right thing and tell him to suck ventworm balls.

Well, Pete, I called it. And the NY TImes calls it like it sees it.

Because he has refused to come clean, and has so damaged his reputation outside of his circle of fans, he wouldn't make the Hall of Fame even if he was reinstated. (On MLB Radio on Sirius XM, I heard Jim Bowden, former Reds and Nats GM, say that he would barely get 10% of the baseball writers' votes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Pete, I called it. And the NY TImes calls it like it sees it.

Because he has refused to come clean, and has so damaged his reputation outside of his circle of fans, he wouldn't make the Hall of Fame even if he was reinstated. (On MLB Radio on Sirius XM, I heard Jim Bowden, former Reds and Nats GM, say that he would barely get 10% of the baseball writers' votes.

"Gambler of Steroid User: Which Is Worse?" on bleacherreport.com

"Most Say Steroids Worse Than Rose's Bets, Yet No Hall Support" by Mike Dodd on usatoday30.usatoday.com

"Hypocritical MLB Replaces Steroids with Gambling in Money Grab" by Phil Mushnick on nypost.com

"Is PED Use Worse Than Betting on Baseball?" on espn.go.com (81% say yes, 19% say no)

"Seeing McGwire Through Rose-Colored Glasses" by Graham Womack on baseballpastandpresent.com

"Kevin Gleason: Why Is Gambling Worse Than Juicing" by Kevin Gleason on recordonline.com

"Poll Which Is Worse Gambling or Steroids in Baseball" by Randy Inman on pantherlair.sportsblog.com (95% say steroids, 5% say gambling)

"Steroids Are Worse Than Gambling" by Sal Marinello on blogcritics.org

"Cowherd: Pete Rose Should Be In The Hall Of Fame" by Trent Baker on breitbart.com

Well, no reinstatement and no Hall of Fame for you, Pete Rose, but I don't see an asterisk by your record either.

post-2-0-17185900-1450731620_thumb.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...