Only Pete Rose...

[Xman95]

Wow, Pete. Just wow. (By the way, if you're looking for Heathcliffe Huxtable, I think he's in Pete Rose's trunk.)

http://mit.zenfs.com/121/2011/03/PeteRose.jpg

[Fred Garvin 2.0]

that is worse than that Xavier pleather jacket Kahn's has.

[Cheesehead]

Son of a gun, I guess Elvis IS still alive. Who knew?

[MADXSTER]

Elvis didn't die, he simply went home.

[GoMuskies]

Worse person: Pete Rose or Bob Huggins?

[Snipe]

Worse person: Pete Rose or Bob Huggins?

I just gave my first neg rep for you. What the hell did Pete do to you? Pete Rose is who is he is. Is he white trash? Sure. Is he not very smart? I will give you that too. Does he like to gamble? Yes to that too. He has a thousand things wrong with him, but that doesn't make him Bob Huggins.

Pete Rose didn't bet against his team. He was an ultimate competitor. He loved to play the game and the way he played the game is the way it should be played.

Bob Huggins is a scumbag and I will endeavor to piss on his grave. All scores will then be settled when dead Huggins drinks my piss.

Huggins is an intelligent man who knew what he was doing. Pete is a simple man that never did anything really wrong. He bet on baseball for sure, but he bet on his own team to win. Had he bet on his own team to lose it would be a different story. You bet on the Muskies. I have too. If Chris Mack bet on the Muskies to win I wouldn't ban him from the game.

Pete is an idiot. That isn't news. Doesn't make him a bad man like Huggins, it just makes him an idiot. Personally I would rather be Huggins than an idiot, but even Pete doesn't deserve that.

Huggins is a scumbag. He should have know better. Pete didn't know better. Pete Rose is some stupid white trash, but that didn't impact the game. He never cheated. Barry Bonds did more damage to baseball than Peter Edward Rose. When it came to the game he was a competitor and an honest broker.

Charlie Hustle Baby. Pete only has a few things going for him, but those things far outweigh Bob Huggins.

[ford]

is that schotzie?

[LutherRackleyRulez]

Have U seen his Girlfriend.......

***btw....where does he get his impressive eyeware????


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AC_mI53n2sM/SwJsOI6UCiI/AAAAAAAAAUc/MaMcOF_CTQ0/s320/asian+pete+rose.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jPmgJDQfKhM/TEvTaZ5XacI/AAAAAAAACz8/4V5B5RhyYRI/s1600/Pete_Rose_girlfriend1.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/game-on/2010/03/30/peterosex-large.jpg

[Muskie]

How does he afford her? I would imagine being Pete Rose only entitled one to so much?

[paulxu]

Seriously...is that woman related to Morganna?

[Muskie]

Seriously...is that woman related to Morganna?

Maybe she bought that jacket he's wearing a few posts above?

Which by the by. Is that really Pete Rose? Isn't he banned from the ballpark still?

[Xpectations]

I just gave my first neg rep for you. What the hell did Pete do to you? Pete Rose is who is he is. Is he white trash? Sure. Is he not very smart? I will give you that too. Does he like to gamble? Yes to that too. He has a thousand things wrong with him, but that doesn't make him Bob Huggins.

Pete Rose didn't bet against his team. He was an ultimate competitor. He loved to play the game and the way he played the game is the way it should be played.

Bob Huggins is a scumbag and I will endeavor to piss on his grave. All scores will then be settled when dead Huggins drinks my piss.

Huggins is an intelligent man who knew what he was doing. Pete is a simple man that never did anything really wrong. He bet on baseball for sure, but he bet on his own team to win. Had he bet on his own team to lose it would be a different story. You bet on the Muskies. I have too. If Chris Mack bet on the Muskies to win I wouldn't ban him from the game.

Pete is an idiot. That isn't news. Doesn't make him a bad man like Huggins, it just makes him an idiot. Personally I would rather be Huggins than an idiot, but even Pete doesn't deserve that.

Huggins is a scumbag. He should have know better. Pete didn't know better. Pete Rose is some stupid white trash, but that didn't impact the game. He never cheated. Barry Bonds did more damage to baseball than Peter Edward Rose. When it came to the game he was a competitor and an honest broker.

Charlie Hustle Baby. Pete only has a few things going for him, but those things far outweigh Bob Huggins.

Gotta disagree. Pete is stupid, as you say; he's also self-centered beyond belief. That's not a "good guy."

Also, the excuse that just because he didn't bet against his team means didn't do anything corrupt is flat out wrong. As a manger, you have the ability to influence games. Sure, you want to win every game. All managers do. But if you have out-sized financial risk attached the results of a given game you may make decisions that are contrary to what's best for you team or your players (e.g. bumping a top starting pitcher up in the order, send in your closer when he really needs rest to avoid injury, etc.)

Pete is bad, self-centered man. And, oh, you're right; he's also stupid.

[MADXSTER]

As a manger, you have the ability to influence games. Sure, you want to win every game. All managers do. But if you have out-sized financial risk attached the results of a given game you may make decisions that are contrary to what's best for you team or your players (e.g. bumping a top starting pitcher up in the order, send in your closer when he really needs rest to avoid injury, etc.)

I agree with both of you, however Xpect, I was surprised that no pitchers, players, trainers, asst coaches, coaches from other teams, etc still have not come out and commented about how this happened.

By now a former player could have easily come out and sued Pete for ruining his career or setting his career back. The possibility of this happening is there but in actuality it probably didn't happen. Every year that goes by with no one even making a claim, makes this less plausible. And now days people live to sue. Just my opinion.

[Jumpy]

Maybe she bought that jacket he's wearing a few posts above?

Which by the by. Is that really Pete Rose? Isn't he banned from the ballpark still?

He's allowed to buy a ticket like the rest of us, or be invited to sit in a luxury box to eat and drink his face off as is what happened, I'm sure.

[paulxu]

I think he's just not allowed onto the field of play. They made some sort of exception for him to do so with that all-century team thing a while back.

[Muskie]

I think he's just not allowed onto the field of play. They made some sort of exception for him to do so with that all-century team thing a while back.

You guys are probably right. I was thinking of when Pete Rose JR. was called up that he sat with Marge Schott. But I suspect (think I remember) that he had to pay for the ticket.

[Xpectations]

I agree with both of you, however Xpect, I was surprised that no pitchers, players, trainers, asst coaches, coaches from other teams, etc still have not come out and commented about how this happened.

By now a former player could have easily come out and sued Pete for ruining his career or setting his career back. The possibility of this happening is there but in actuality it probably didn't happen. Every year that goes by with no one even making a claim, makes this less plausible. And now days people live to sue. Just my opinion.

I never said it did happen. I'm simply disputing Snipe's point that it's not wrong if you bet on your own team.

That said, just because no one has made a claim or sued him doesn't mean it didn't happen either. We'll never know if he put someone at risk where the risk didn't play out.

Again, if you're a manager, player, etc, betting on baseball is wrong. Betting on games that you influence is even more wrong -- regardless of which way you bet.

He also lied ... for years ... to millions. That is also wrong. He didn't declare winnings on his gambling. That is also wrong--not just stupid.

Pete Rose has done so many bad things in his life it's not even funny. Yes, he is stupid, but to act as though he's severely mentally handicapped and that he was a good guy except for his stupidity doesn't hold water.

[chico]

It always was odd how well Rose's teams played in September. Always making that mad dash to end up 4 games back. Having money on the games probably helped save Pete's job, because they were usually buried in 4th place until September hit.

Pete is by no mean an innocent - the gambling, the affairs, the tax evasion. There's always been a seedy side to him. But to put him on par with BeelzeBob is ludicrous.

[ballyhoohoo]

When did pete become an 80 year old woman

[Emp]

Pete Rose has more illegitimate children than St Al's Orphanage. He lied and lied and lied some more about betting on baseball. He cheated on his taxes forever. What more could a guy do, short of murder, to demonstrate a selfish jerk? In the Great Race for famous Cincinnati douchebags, its at best a dead heat with Huggy.

While I think keeping him out of the HOF is bullshit, I would NEVER let him any where near any person I valued in any way.

[XULucho27]

http://mit.zenfs.com/121/2011/03/PeteRose.jpg

I think he's channeling his inner Elton John.

[Xpectations]

In some cases, I think there is a "Fan" coefficient that is being plugged into the "how bad is he" formula for each of these guys.

Most people here love the Reds and hate the Bearcats.

Therefore anyone who is bad but plays for the Reds gets a factor less than 1 and anyone associated with the Bearcats gets a coefficient greater than 1.

If Pete did what he did but as a member of a team we hated, we'd have a different view of it. Same with Huggs.

Suffice to say that neither of them will ever be eligible for sainthood.

[Emp]

Of course we love to hate players, coaches and anyone associated with teams or schools we also hate; and have large blind spots for players on teams we love. I'm still a fan of Dedrick and Lloyd, and cut them slack for off the court transgressions.

And yet.... I like the Reds a lot (even though my native allegiance is with the Tigers). And I really have loved any number of Reds over the years: Davey, Tom Browning, Eric Davis, Bench. And yet... even given that any great athlete is going to have an abundance of self confidence/arrogance, Rose just stands out for me as a very bad dude. He got busted, repeatedly, and failed miserably to man up to it.

[Xpectations]

Of course we love to hate players, coaches and anyone associated with teams or schools we also hate; and have large blind spots for players on teams we love. I'm still a fan of Dedrick and Lloyd, and cut them slack for off the court transgressions.

And yet.... I like the Reds a lot (even though my native allegiance is with the Tigers). And I really have loved any number of Reds over the years: Davey, Tom Browning, Eric Davis, Bench. And yet... even given that any great athlete is going to have an abundance of self confidence/arrogance, Rose just stands out for me as a very bad dude. He got busted, repeatedly, and failed miserably to man up to it.

Despite my current thoughts about Pete, I ALWAYS chose #14 as my number when playing baseball as a kid. He was my favorite player growing up and no one else was even close.

[Roach]

Rose just stands out for me as a very bad dude. He got busted, repeatedly, and failed miserably to man up to it.

I gotta agree with Emp on this one. I am a loyal Reds fan, and I have absolutely no respect or admiration for Pete Rose. He DID break the rules by betting on baseball which, perhaps, is forgivable. However, rather than honestly admitting his offenses, he spent the next 20 years repeatedly and vociferously denying having committed them. Finally, when he realized being forthright was the only potential avenue that would have enabled him to enter the Hall, he admitted his transgressions. And somehow, Snipe, you're suggesting that we're out of line for disliking and/or criticizing someone who only tells the truth when it's convenient? Go ahead and give me a "negative rep" for saying this, but I take solace in the fact that I hold people to a higher standard than Pete Rose.

[gladdenguy]

Worse person: Pete Rose or Bob Huggins?

Both are pathetic human beings.
I hate Huggins more but there aren't many people above either one of these guys.

[nuts4xu]

Pete Rose has more illegitimate children than St Al's Orphanage. He lied and lied and lied some more about betting on baseball. He cheated on his taxes forever. What more could a guy do, short of murder, to demonstrate a selfish jerk?

I would rather laugh with the sinners than to cry with the saints....

The sinners are much more fun.

Pete Rose is a Scumbag westsider as a person but he was one of the best ever in the game of baseball. The game is better for having had Pete Rose play in all those games.

[blobfan]

Pete Rose has more illegitimate children than St Al's Orphanage. He lied and lied and lied some more about betting on baseball. He cheated on his taxes forever. What more could a guy do, short of murder, to demonstrate a selfish jerk? In the Great Race for famous Cincinnati douchebags, its at best a dead heat with Huggy.

While I think keeping him out of the HOF is bullshit, I would NEVER let him any where near any person I valued in any way.


Both are pathetic human beings.
I hate Huggins more but there aren't many people above either one of these guys.

I think 'pathetic douchebag' is the appropriate description for both, for reasons previously mentioned. They are both flawed, selfish, opportunistic, incomplete human beings willing to go just past the boundaries of law, counting on their fame and talent to get them by. Would I trust them alone with my dog? Only in an emergency and for a short period of time. But only because I'd expect them to wander off at the first selfish reason, not because I think they'd harm the animal.

To call either a bad human being is a bit much in my opinion. They both suck but if they cleaned themselves up tomorrow and dedicated their lives to charity, I'd be willing to give them credit for it. I guess for me it's a scale of how many lives have they ruined. How many people are dead, or emotionally/physically damaged because of what they've done in their lives? It seems to me they do the most damage to themselves, they are just too dumb to really see it.

Or am I missing something about what they've done?

Back to the original topic, I was suprised to see Pete in town in any garb. There must have been some sort of autograph signing or paid appearance to get him here. Wonder if the jacket was part of the deal.

[Xpectations]

Pete Rose is a Scumbag westsider as a person but he was one of the best ever in the game of baseball. The game is better for having had Pete Rose play in all those games.

I completely agree with this.

But for all his positive deposits as a player he made just as many negative withdrawals as a manger and after being banned.

Emp is right that we all have our blinders, almost always caused by what we wish the outcome or result to be rather than what it truly is. Then we look to manipulate the data to support our wish.

It happens in politics, on both sides of debates, such as man-created global warming, etc. We start with the end result we wish to be true and then creatively work backwards to prove it is so.

I wish for nothing more than for Pete to be a good guy and a true hero. Sadly, he is neither.

[Jumpy]

Pete Rose has more illegitimate children than St Al's Orphanage. He lied and lied and lied some more about betting on baseball. He cheated on his taxes forever. What more could a guy do, short of murder, to demonstrate a selfish jerk? In the Great Race for famous Cincinnati douchebags, its at best a dead heat with Huggy.

While I think keeping him out of the HOF is bullshit, I would NEVER let him any where near any person I valued in any way.

I was with you until this line. He should forever remain on the outside of the hall looking in. His accomplishments are thoroughly documented in the hall with all kinds of memorabilia. He, as a player and a man, should not have a bust hanging in the halls.


Finally, when he realized being forthright was the only potential avenue that would have enabled him to enter the Hall, he admitted his transgressions.

It wasn't even for this reason that he admitted his guilt. He came clean as a marketing ploy to sell his book.

[cutterX]

In those glasses Pete looks like an old Jewish woman from NYC
And Snipe, I would argue both Pete and Huggy are white trash who are arrogant beyond belief and thought(think) normal rules do not apply to them

[bobbiemcgee]

Pete personally = scumbag. Pete Baseball Player= HOF the best.

[paulxu]

Pete personally = scumbag. Pete Baseball Player= HOF the best.

Agreed. Public reps as unable to get by gatekeepers.

[LadyMuskie]

Pete is one of the best baseball players in the history of baseball. That is indisputable and for that fact alone he should be in the HOF. If Babe Ruth, who was a drunk, abused women and was an all-around disgusting human being can be in the HOF, then Pete should be in there too.

On a side not, he may not be a model citizen, but he is one hell of a story teller and one hell of a funny, personable guy. That doesn't excuse his many problems, but when you hear him speak he is self-effacing, has a very good sense of humor, and can tell a story in such a way that you feel you were a part of it.

[LadyMuskie]

Agreed. Public reps as unable to get by gatekeepers.

I got him for you.

[SixFig]

There is a sign in every Major League locker room, and has been since the Black Sox scandal, that says "NO GAMBLING ON BASEBALL". Pete Rose walked past that sign every day for decades yet still willfully gambled on baseball, then denied it for years.

He should be in the Hall of Fame...when he dies. A lifelong ban is a lifelong ban.

[X-band '01]

I'm sure it goes beyond the point of death - why haven't any of the Black Sox players been elected to the Hall since their banishment? Pete Rose gets MORE fame out of being banned than he does by being in the Hall. Nice little irony if you ask me.

Just imagine how much fun baseball would be if they had a rogue umpire like Tim Donaghy was for the NBA.

[paulxu]

Thanks Lady. Good luck on the bracket!

Meanwhile, here's Mack's tweet on Pete:

If you put 3D glasses on during the Reds game, you'd have found Waldo hidden in Pete Rose's jacket...
8:52 PM Mar 31st via Twitter for BlackBerry®

[Fred Garvin 2.0]

Snipe is hilarious claiming Pete never cheated. You don't think all those greenies after a night game were PED's? Geez, take the blinders off.

[Fred Garvin 2.0]

And in his book he said this:"Yes sir, I did bet on baseball," he answered, according to his book.

Asked how often, he replied, "Four or five times a week. But I never bet against my own team, and I never made any bets from the clubhouse."

Betting on your team 4 or 5 teams a week is not the same as a standing bet. Otherwise he would have simply said he had a standing bet. This speaks to Xpecs point about strategically resting players.

Also, Pete is an admitted liar. Like McGuire he made his own bed by not being forthcoming.

[Snipe]

I was drunk when I gave Go the Negative rep and I tried to take it away but I can't do that.

Sorry GoMuskies, I was in a huff.

Pete never bet against his team. I have seen no evidence of that at all and anybody that knew him doesn't cop to that story. He bet on his own team to win. That is not ethically wrong. It might be against the rules of Baseball, but it is not ethically wrong. What other players did with steroids was much worse. THey were cheating. He wasn't cheating, he was betting on his own team. They destroyed the sacred baseball records with their steriods, he just bet on his own team to win. See the difference? How much trouble could Pete Rose cause betting on his own team to win?

Bob Huggins is a cheater. Barry Bonds is a cheater. Pete Rose never cheated. He bet on his own team to win. They compared his betting to the Black Sox scandle, when the Chicago White Sox threw a World Series for money. Pete never did that either. It just isn't fair to him to have those comparisons. Is he a saint? No. He is an idiot. But he is better than a lot of those guys who get off scott free. He never compromised the game, and that is a key. The people that cheated did just that, and the people that threw games did just that. Pete was in it to win it.

Sorry for the neg rep Go Muskies, I was rumored to be intoxicated.

Pete isn't a great man. But when it comes to baseball I would argue that he ins't a bad man at all. He never threw a game. He didn't deserve what he got. Far more damage has been done by other players in our lifetime, yet Pete gets the blame. He never cheated or threw a game.

[wkrq59]

Snipe, for one of the few times in the years I have posted here I absolutely agree with you for what that's worth.
Tried to rep you twice but not allowed. Pete Rose s basically an ignorant good man who fought his way up to be the best ever hitter in baseball. And f anybody who says otherwise.
The fools who claim there is integrity in baseball are just that. Pete did nothing to the integrity of baseball because there is none.
The steroid users and the managements and commissioner and the rest of the sanctimonious who knew of the steroid use and let it continue to supposedly save baseball are the real a-holes who damaged the game. Huggins, why even discuss Jabba the Hut II?:mad::eek::D

[SixFig]

With due respect, both Q and Snipe are wrong as can be. Betting on baseball is illegal and damages the integrity of the game (please don't lump an entire sport in one, some played the game right). Don't deflect by talking about other issues, this is it's own issue.

Even if Rose only bet on his own team to win (which I doubt), there are extremely negative consequences to his actions. Consider the following scenarios:

1. Rose bets on game A against the last place team but not the next days game against a contender. He then pitches his best starter in game A in order to win the bet, when it would be smarter for the team to save that pitcher for when it really matters. His bet has affected the outcome of the game and potentially the pennant race.

2. Rose bets on a Monday game following a weekend of grueling close games. He has had to use his closer in every game, for multiple innings. Normally you would rest a closer. But that Monday, in a tight 2-1 ballgame, he brings in his exhausted closer just to win the game. His bet has affected the outcome of the game and potentially the career of a pitcher.


BOTTOM LINE: His betting no doubt affected the outcome of the season, and the careers of players. Like steroids, this should be frowned upon. He knew what he was doing. People in Cinci try to pretend like he's just some Forrest Gump who awww shucks was just bettin on his team. False. He was a smart and savy player and manager, and turned his lies into a lucrative business with signings and books. He knew what he was doing and he did compromise the game, and for that...lifetime ban.

[Jumpy]

I don't know the specifics of your career, Q, but I do know that you were a sports writer for a local rag presumably coinciding with Pete's career in Cincinnati. Because of this, I fear that you may be a little too close to the situation to have an unbiased oppinion on the matter.

Ever since the Black Sox scandal almost 100 years ago, betting on baseball has been THE taboo in MLB. Pete Rose, fully knowing the potential consequences if caught, took advantage of his position and placed bets on the very sport he worked in. This is directly akin to a large firm CFO getting caught inside trading. On top of that, he lied about it, to everyone, for years. He only came clean because he wanted a book deal and this was the only way he was going to move books off shelves.

Pete rose is everything but the sweet, innocent, dopey guy you make him out to be. He's not Gomer Pyle, he's a narcisistic P.O.S. that doesn't deserve the attention he's getting.

[THRILLHOUSE]

I don't know the specifics of your career, Q, but I do know that you were a sports writer for a local rag presumably coinciding with Pete's career in Cincinnati. Because of this, I fear that you may be a little too close to the situation to have an unbiased oppinion on the matter.

Ever since the Black Sox scandal almost 100 years ago, betting on baseball has been THE taboo in MLB. Pete Rose, fully knowing the potential consequences if caught, took advantage of his position and placed bets on the very sport he worked in. This is directly akin to a large firm CFO getting caught inside trading. On top of that, he lied about it, to everyone, for years. He only came clean because he wanted a book deal and this was the only way he was going to move books off shelves.

Pete rose is everything but the sweet, innocent, dopey guy you make him out to be. He's not Gomer Pyle, he's a narcisistic P.O.S. that doesn't deserve the attention he's getting.

THIS (and what SixFig said)

[paulxu]

I think Snipe/Q and SixFig/Jumpy present very clear examples of looking at both sides of the Pete Rose issue.

Therefore I must be a dunce, since I follow a third approach, which may not be valid:

1 - He bet on games as manager and always on his team (so it's OK). Let him in HOF
2 - He could have managed games to support his bets (not OK). Keep him out of HOF

3 - Betting on baseball gets you a lifetime ban from the game. He's got that already.
Absent some evidence of betting on games while playing, his induction in HOF would be based on his achievements as a player...I say let him in the HOF as a player.

[gladdenguy]

Is there proof that he didn't bet against his team?

[Jumpy]

3 - Betting on baseball gets you a lifetime ban from the game. He's got that already.
Absent some evidence of betting on games while playing, his induction in HOF would be based on his achievements as a player...I say let him in the HOF as a player.

I agreed with this sentiment until I made a trip to Cooperstown about ten years ago. the year I went there, they had a display with the jersey, bat and cleats that Pete wore when he hit # 4192. His accomplishments as a player are well documented in the Hall and, IMO, nothing more is needed.

[Xpectations]

Some comments -- some of which echo thoughts expressed by others:

The MLB HOF does need to protect the integrity of baseball. Yes, you are allowed in if you cheat on your wife, party till you puke and you don't even have to be a nice guy. But you aren't allowed in if you break the #1 rule that relates to the integrity of the game: betting on baseball.
For 15 years he lied to baseball and those judging him about his actions despite overwhelming evidence against him. I'll bet many here that support Pete now spent at least a portion, if not all, of those 15 years believing him.
If we let Pete in the HOF, or pretend he did nothing really wrong (as suggested here), then do we simply create a new rule? New rule: You can bet on baseball as long as you bet on your own team. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why shouldn't everyone feel like they can bet on their team if it's not amongst baseball's cardinal sins?
There's no question Pete Rose's accomplishments deserve HOF recognition. And guess what? Those milestone accomplishments ARE recgonized in the HOF -- complete with displays, etc.
Pete Rose, the person, does NOT deserve a plaque in the HOF -- not because he's a bad guy in PLENTY of areas (he is, but then so are many others in the HOF) -- but because he knowingly and repeatedly violated the #1 rule in baseball despite having full and complete knowledge of the significance, the magnitude and the consequences of that violation. In fact, few people in baseball history have walked past the sign forbidding betting on baseball more than Pete Rose. Pete took a gamble. He lost. Lose a bet, pay the costs. Big bets have bigger risks. Pete, of all people, knows that.
Like Bob Huggins, Pete Rose has NO integrity.

[Xpectations]

IWhat other players did with steroids was much worse. THey were cheating...Barry Bonds is a cheater.

And like Pete Rose, there's a damned good chance you won't see a Barry Bonds plaque in the HOF in your lifetime.

[bleedXblue]

Pete on the field was one person that we all admired.

Off the field he is a person that I would not find myself wanting to be associated with. He is his own worst enemy.

[Juice]

Pete on the field was one person that we all admired.

Off the field he is a person that I would not find myself wanting to be associated with. He is his own worst enemy.

I will disagree with this somewhat. When I was a lot younger, I had the chance to meet Pete a few times. Each time he talked to me briefly and signed things for me when I asked. One time he even told me to put my napkin and pen away and he pulled out card-like thing and signed it with a marker. I understand he usually charges now for autographs but everytime I met him he was as nice as can be.

[bleedXblue]

Pete must have lost a bet...........to wear that jacket.

[Jumpy]

And like Pete Rose, there's a damned good chance you won't see a Barry Bonds plaque in the HOF in your lifetime.

Or McGwire.

[bobbiemcgee]

"Pete Rose is basically an ignorant good man". Disagree. He knew exactly what he was doing whether it was illegal betting or tax fraud. He didn't think he had to play by the rules off the field. Not dumb but arrogant "I'm Pete Rose", rules for mere mortals don't apply to me. He is not a good person. Very selfish imho. He makes a living now signing his name for cash. Nice gig. He's a sideshow with one beneficiary, Pete Rose.

On the field, every kid should try to emulate the way he played the game.

[bobbiemcgee]

Pete must have lost a bet...........to wear that jacket.

Mack tweet:

If you put 3D glasses on during the Reds game, you'd have found Waldo hidden in Pete Rose's jacket...
8:52 PM Mar 31st via Twitter for BlackBerry®

:logo:

[Emp]

I was with you until this line. He should forever remain on the outside of the hall looking in. His accomplishments are thoroughly documented in the hall with all kinds of memorabilia. He, as a player and a man, should not have a bust hanging in the halls.
.

I grew up in Detroit, where Ty Cobb was the Legend. But Cobb was an arrogant, meanspirited guy in his private life, and killed a man and got away with it because he was Cobb.

Should Cobb not have a bust in the HOF because he was a jerk?

I understand the distinction between breaking baseball rules and being a lousy human being, but there is no evidence and no accusation that Rose bet as a player. He deserves to be in the HOF as a player.

[Xpectations]

there is no evidence and no accusation that Rose bet as a player. He deserves to be in the HOF as a player.

No he does not. They don't differentiate plaques based on your various roles in baseball.

If you were a great player AND a great manager you don't get two plaques. You don't get two induction ceremonies. You get a single plaque that references your accomplishments in baseball, indpendent of role(s).

Again, Rose's major achievements as a player are already a part of the HOF. It's not like the HOF pretends Pete Rose -- the all-time leader in hits, etc. -- never existed. MLB has simply chosen not to provide him the honor of enshrinement as an individual.

Sorry, but this argument holds no water.

[chico]

No he does not. They don't differentiate plaques based on your various roles in baseball.

If you were a great player AND a great manager you don't get two plaques. You don't get two induction ceremonies. You get a single plaque that references your accomplishments in baseball, indpendent of role(s).

Again, Rose's major achievements as a player are already a part of the HOF. It's not like the HOF pretends Pete Rose -- the all-time leader in hits, etc. -- never existed. MLB has simply chosen not to provide him the honor of enshrinement as an individual.

Sorry, but this argument holds no water.

I don't usually side with Emp and against Epec, but I do here. Since there is no evidence of Rose betting as a player, his exploits as a player should be allowed to stand alone when consideration for enshrinement is given. Your argument about separate plaques for player and manager is not valid for two reasons. First, I can't recall a person worthy as a player and manager, so who's to say there wouldn't be two inductions? Second - and more importantly - from a practical standpoint, in all likelihood, a player who becomes a manger probably would not have enough time to build a HOF career before being inducted as a player. If Rose had been a wonderful manager and not been banned, it's likely that he would have been inducted as a player while still managing.

I think you can separate playing career from managing career. You have to, because if not then maybe Tony Perez doesn't deserve to be in the HOF because he was not a very good manager.

It's two separate jobs. You cannot take them together. What if a great player becomes a HOF caliber GM, or broadcaster? Would Joe Morgan be denied a place in the broadcasting wing just because he was already inducted as a player?

[bleedXblue]

I don't usually side with Emp and against Epec, but I do here. Since there is no evidence of Rose betting as a player, his exploits as a player should be allowed to stand alone when consideration for enshrinement is given. Your argument about separate plaques for player and manager is not valid for two reasons. First, I can't recall a person worthy as a player and manager, so who's to say there wouldn't be two inductions? Second - and more importantly - from a practical standpoint, in all likelihood, a player who becomes a manger probably would not have enough time to build a HOF career before being inducted as a player. If Rose had been a wonderful manager and not been banned, it's likely that he would have been inducted as a player while still managing.

I think you can separate playing career from managing career. You have to, because if not then maybe Tony Perez doesn't deserve to be in the HOF because he was not a very good manager.

It's two separate jobs. You cannot take them together. What if a great player becomes a HOF caliber GM, or broadcaster? Would Joe Morgan be denied a place in the broadcasting wing just because he was already inducted as a player?

The people making the decisions govern the players and the coaches....and please remember guys that he made trasngressions against "the game of baseball".

He screwed up.

Answer this. Would Rose be in the HOF if he would have come clean at the time when Giamatti uncovered this ? I think that he would be. Instead he lied for 20 years and only came clean b/c he knew he couldn't escape from the truth.

[muskiefan82]

If you are the manager and you only bet on your team to win, when you didn't bet at all, what were you saying?

[wkrq59]

I don't know the specifics of your career, Q, but I do know that you were a sports writer for a local rag presumably coinciding with Pete's career in Cincinnati. Because of this, I fear that you may be a little too close to the situation to have an unbiased oppinion on the matter.
Ever since the Black Sox scandal almost 100 years ago, betting on baseball has been THE taboo in MLB. Pete Rose, fully knowing the potential consequences if caught, took advantage of his position and placed bets on the very sport he worked in. This is directly akin to a large firm CFO getting caught inside trading. On top of that, he lied about it, to everyone, for years. He only came clean because he wanted a book deal and this was the only way he was going to move books off shelves.
Pete rose is everything but the sweet, innocent, dopey guy you make him out to be. He's not Gomer Pyle, he's a narcisistic P.O.S. that doesn't deserve the attention he's getting.

Jumpy and others,
Since you don't know the specifics of my 34 years at the Cincinnati Post, please don't presume that I was too close to the situations about and surrounding Pete Rose and his Hall of Fame career as a player. You know what happens when you assume.
First, during the time of Pete Rose trial, inquisition and the conduct of the investigation engendered by the late A. Bartlett Giamatti, a man who should have had "Conflict of Interest and Bias" attached to his surname forever, I was involved covering UC (both football and basketball) and my Alma Mater, Xavier. Since with the former (from 1978 to 1986, there was never a day off from the constant controversy of their programs) and with the latter, very little time off because of the excellence of the programs which demanded special attention, I had little time to even think about Pete rose and his sojurns.
That said, there is so much about the Rose mess that I can not talk about today because it would cost former associates their careers, information which came into my possession quite by accident. I will only make these two statements:
1)If Pete Rose were a member of the Yankees or Mets, he would never have had things jerimandered and even rigged (see Doc Gooden and Daryl Strawberry and Mickey, and George et al. who were all guilty of many of the same wrongs as Rose. They never had to face jail or lifetime ban which terms Pete agreed to and which the late commissioner violated before the ink was dry.
2)Pete Rose is the same uneducated, ignorant self-indulgent fool he always has been with one exception--his love for the game of baseball. When he finally confessed as he was told might get him in the Hall if he did, he was not contrite enough and on and on. Rose is paying for sins he committed AFTER he left the playing field. But that alone is not the reason he should be in the Hall. He simply amassed more hits and did so with limited talent which he got the most out of by hard work, diligence and hustle, qualities which we used to and sometimes espouse even today, when we are possessed of righteousness that doesn't become us.
The rulings in the Black Sox scandal were assessed despite the fact that no verdict of guilt was rendered in a civil trial. Those bans were levied by a judge and later commissioner whose character was more stained than Rose's.
Really, all of this doen't matter one damned bit, because baseball will do, and adjust it conscience and justification to whatever standards MONEY sets. Rose was allowed to be part of the Team of the Century, half-centtury or whatever because the sponsoring entity insisted like, Jimmy Chitwood, "Pete's there, we play (pay). He ain't we don't." All of which proves the current commissioner--another Mr. Conflict of Interest"-- is bought and paid for by the owners and the individual persons known as big corporations, in other words, $$$$$$.
Please spare me the use of the words "integrity of the game," because baseball has none and hasn't had since the 1994 lockout and strike and even many years before. Soon, baseball will relent its "we didn't know" and "forgive and forget" its stance on steroids so Mesers Bonds, McGwire, Palmero, et al can be admitted nto the Hall for all the alleged right and charitable reasons. When that happens, baseball will continue to be the whitened sepelchure that it has been. Baseball is no longer the national pastime. It has been replaced by football and even college basketball.
One more thing. I hope the day never comes in the twilight of my years when I say "yes" to an obvious injustice rendered by sanctimonious hypocrites.

[chico]

The people making the decisions govern the players and the coaches....and please remember guys that he made trasngressions against "the game of baseball".

He screwed up.

Answer this. Would Rose be in the HOF if he would have come clean at the time when Giamatti uncovered this ? I think that he would be. Instead he lied for 20 years and only came clean b/c he knew he couldn't escape from the truth.

Yes he did screw up - but as a manager, not as a player. I have no beef with him being banned from baseball, but I also think he should be in the HOF for what he did no the field as a player, because there is no evidence that he did anything wrong during his tenure as one.

Actually, Rose had a deal from Ueberroth. He was offered a one year suspension from Ueberroth, was shown the entire Dowd report, and was told by Ueberroth (who was bowing out) that the man replacing him would not give him such a good deal. Rose, being an egomaniac, said thanks but no thanks, because he was innocent. Yes, he lied then and he lied until it was financially prudent for him not to lie anymore. But that still does not take away the fact that as a player he is a sure-fire Hall of Famer.

[bobbiemcgee]

My only issue is when you call him ignorant as in "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general". He ABSOLUTELY knew betting wasn't allowed. He ABSOLUTELY knew you can't take cash payments and pay no tax. He just tried to get away with it and who knows how many other scams and got caught for some of them. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

[MADXSTER]

There are great lessons that can be taught to children about Pete Rose; both good and bad.

IMO Pete should be in the HOF but should not be allowed back in the game.

Most people who are disgusted by Pete are those who are too young to have followed the inquisition(which really is what it was) or those outside of Cincinnati who didn't follow the goings on like the locals did. Not saying that some didn't follow as closely, but most did not. They listened to the spin because it made a great story. Who knew that hating can be so much fun.

What most people don't realize is that this was a vendetta.

I'm not a fan of what Pete did in the least. I'm not a fan of defending him either. IMO what he did was flat out wrong, but what the commissioners office did was far worse.

[SixFig]

Notice how the Pete Rose defenders fall back on "well baseball has done far worse, no integrity bla bla bla". Arguments unrelated to the current discussion.

What would be the lesson to kids if Pete was in the Hall of Fame? Sure you can break the rules, but if you were a great player things will be all right for you. Cause that's the message you would be sending. It's no different than Calhoun getting a slap on the wrist for the Nate Miles scenario because he is a famous coach. The message should be that if you break the rules you get the maximum penalty and no breaks because of who you are.

[SixFig]

What if Chris Mack bet on Xavier?

[Xpectations]

There are great lessons that can be taught to children about Pete Rose; both good and bad.

This is a great point. It's something I've always thought about Bob Knight as well.

[Xpectations]

Jumpy and others,
Since you don't know the specifics of my 34 years at the Cincinnati Post, please don't presume that I was too close to the situations about and surrounding Pete Rose and his Hall of Fame career as a player. You know what happens when you assume.
First, during the time of Pete Rose trial, inquisition and the conduct of the investigation engendered by the late A. Bartlett Giamatti, a man who should have had "Conflict of Interest and Bias" attached to his surname forever, I was involved covering UC (both football and basketball) and my Alma Mater, Xavier. Since with the former (from 1978 to 1986, there was never a day off from the constant controversy of their programs) and with the latter, very little time off because of the excellence of the programs which demanded special attention, I had little time to even think about Pete rose and his sojurns.
That said, there is so much about the Rose mess that I can not talk about today because it would cost former associates their careers, information which came into my possession quite by accident. I will only make these two statements:
1)If Pete Rose were a member of the Yankees or Mets, he would never have had things jerimandered and even rigged (see Doc Gooden and Daryl Strawberry and Mickey, and George et al. who were all guilty of many of the same wrongs as Rose. They never had to face jail or lifetime ban which terms Pete agreed to and which the late commissioner violated before the ink was dry.
2)Pete Rose is the same uneducated, ignorant self-indulgent fool he always has been with one exception--his love for the game of baseball. When he finally confessed as he was told might get him in the Hall if he did, he was not contrite enough and on and on. Rose is paying for sins he committed AFTER he left the playing field. But that alone is not the reason he should be in the Hall. He simply amassed more hits and did so with limited talent which he got the most out of by hard work, diligence and hustle, qualities which we used to and sometimes espouse even today, when we are possessed of righteousness that doesn't become us.
The rulings in the Black Sox scandal were assessed despite the fact that no verdict of guilt was rendered in a civil trial. Those bans were levied by a judge and later commissioner whose character was more stained than Rose's.
Really, all of this doen't matter one damned bit, because baseball will do, and adjust it conscience and justification to whatever standards MONEY sets. Rose was allowed to be part of the Team of the Century, half-centtury or whatever because the sponsoring entity insisted like, Jimmy Chitwood, "Pete's there, we play (pay). He ain't we don't." All of which proves the current commissioner--another Mr. Conflict of Interest"-- is bought and paid for by the owners and the individual persons known as big corporations, in other words, $$$$$$.
Please spare me the use of the words "integrity of the game," because baseball has none and hasn't had since the 1994 lockout and strike and even many years before. Soon, baseball will relent its "we didn't know" and "forgive and forget" its stance on steroids so Mesers Bonds, McGwire, Palmero, et al can be admitted nto the Hall for all the alleged right and charitable reasons. When that happens, baseball will continue to be the whitened sepelchure that it has been. Baseball is no longer the national pastime. It has been replaced by football and even college basketball.
One more thing. I hope the day never comes in the twilight of my years when I say "yes" to an obvious injustice rendered by sanctimonious hypocrites.

There are plenty of good points here, none of which excuses Pete for betting on baseball and what he knew would result in a lifetime banishment if he were caught.

[Xpectations]

My only issue is when you call him ignorant as in "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general". He ABSOLUTELY knew betting wasn't allowed. He ABSOLUTELY knew you can't take cash payments and pay no tax. He just tried to get away with it and who knows how many other scams and got caught for some of them. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

Lots of good points on this thread, but this is perhaps the best.

There continues to be this notion that Pete is ignorant and uneducated, as though that somehow forgives him. As Bobbie says, Pete absolutely knew what he was doing and was smart enough to avoid it. He simply chose not to.

I suppose the same people making this argument believe that a player or manager who is a genius does deserve a lifetime ban because somehow he knew better than to do this, but because Pete is a dumbass it makes it okay. Hmmm...

[MADXSTER]

Notice how the Pete Rose defenders fall back on "well baseball has done far worse, no integrity bla bla bla". Arguments unrelated to the current discussion.

From my standpoint I'm talking directly about the topic at hand.

[chico]

Notice how the Pete Rose defenders fall back on "well baseball has done far worse, no integrity bla bla bla". Arguments unrelated to the current discussion.

What would be the lesson to kids if Pete was in the Hall of Fame? Sure you can break the rules, but if you were a great player things will be all right for you. Cause that's the message you would be sending. It's no different than Calhoun getting a slap on the wrist for the Nate Miles scenario because he is a famous coach. The message should be that if you break the rules you get the maximum penalty and no breaks because of who you are.

I have not relied on this argument in backing Pete Rose.

But since you bring it up, along with the lesson to kids, why don't we get rid of Ty Cobb? What does it say to kids that a man who went into the stands to beat up a man with no arms is in the HOF? What's in going to say when the first steroid user gets in? What's it say to kids that Lawrence Taylor and OJ Simpson are in the football HOF? What about Mickey Mantle and Paul Horning, who were known to hang out with bookies? Again, what these guys did has no bearing on whether Rose should be let in, but your argument about what does it say to kids is a little over the top if you ask me.

But here's what it says to kids. See Pete Rose over there. Yes, he was a great ballplayer but he can no longer make a livelihood from the game he loves because he screwed up and bet on baseball. The HOF merely honors a man's accomplishments on the field. It does not permit him entrance back into the game. The fact that he's banned from being a part of the game - a game that is entire life - is a much harsher penalty than banishment from the HOF.

His betting on baseball has nothing to do with what he did on the field. Unlike the Black Sox, he did not throw games.

What if it had come out that Rose bet on baseball after he was elected? Would we look on him like Cobb or would there be a groundswell to kick him out?

[MADXSTER]

What would be the lesson to kids if Pete was in the Hall of Fame?

The good lessons....
In this case I was talking about Pete the baseball player and following your dreams. You may not be the biggest or the best but if you work your ass off, hustle and focus, good things will happen.

The bad lessons.....
Do things the Xavier way or your dreams will be taken away from you. Deservedly so. Follow the rules. it doesn't matter how good you are, if you cheat you lose. Your only cheating yourself.

[xuwin]

I was drunk when I gave Go the Negative rep and I tried to take it away but I can't do that.

Sorry GoMuskies, I was in a huff.

Pete never bet against his team. I have seen no evidence of that at all and anybody that knew him doesn't cop to that story. He bet on his own team to win. That is not ethically wrong. It might be against the rules of Baseball, but it is not ethically wrong. What other players did with steroids was much worse. THey were cheating. He wasn't cheating, he was betting on his own team. They destroyed the sacred baseball records with their steriods, he just bet on his own team to win. See the difference? How much trouble could Pete Rose cause betting on his own team to win?

Bob Huggins is a cheater. Barry Bonds is a cheater. Pete Rose never cheated. He bet on his own team to win. They compared his betting to the Black Sox scandle, when the Chicago White Sox threw a World Series for money. Pete never did that either. It just isn't fair to him to have those comparisons. Is he a saint? No. He is an idiot. But he is better than a lot of those guys who get off scott free. He never compromised the game, and that is a key. The people that cheated did just that, and the people that threw games did just that. Pete was in it to win it.

Sorry for the neg rep Go Muskies, I was rumored to be intoxicated.

Pete isn't a great man. But when it comes to baseball I would argue that he ins't a bad man at all. He never threw a game. He didn't deserve what he got. Far more damage has been done by other players in our lifetime, yet Pete gets the blame. He never cheated or threw a game.

He did spend 2 years in prison for income tax evasion which was stealing from us.

[XU 87]

Jumpy and others,
First, during the time of Pete Rose trial, inquisition and the conduct of the investigation engendered by the late A. Bartlett Giamatti, a man who should have had "Conflict of Interest and Bias" attached to his surname forever,

They never had to face jail or lifetime ban which terms Pete agreed to and which the late commissioner violated before the ink was dry.


I read the Dowd Report a few years before Pete admitted betting on baseball. But after reading the report, I came away with two conclusions:

1) Pete probably bet on baseball.

2) The report is a sham in so much as it is supposed to be an independent unbiased investigation. It wasn't. It is biased as hell, including Dowd stating what fine outstanding individuals all the felons were that Dowd interviewed to get his information. It was a prosecutor's report that slanted the facts, including giving one witness a second lie detector test because he failed the first one.

And the commissioner then violated the setttlement agreement by proclaiming in the press conference that Rose bet on baseball.

[MADXSTER]

He did spend 2 years in prison for income tax evasion which was stealing from us.

This is true. The tax evasion consisted of money earned during autograph signings. It had nothing to do with his betting on baseball.

[bobbiemcgee]

and yet, my kids ask and my numerous little league teams, and hs players ask, "Who is greastest Baseball Player you have ever seen play". I say "easy, Peter Edward Rose". There was nothing like that head first slide into third on a play nobody thought he could make. Maybe that's where the ignorance came in. :D

[Fred Garvin 2.0]

I would have loved to have been in the stands for the Pete/Bud Harrelson near riot at Shea.
Read Joe Posnanski's "The Machine" and that sounded epic.

[Snipe]

He did spend 2 years in prison for income tax evasion which was stealing from us.

To my knowledge Peter Edward Rose is the only person to go to jail for not reporting his autograph earnings. After he went to jail they stopped looking. Several Hall of Famers could have spent years in jail for that. Name one other person that went to jail for not reporting his autograph income. Pete Rose was ripe and "respectable people" wanted that idiot white trash to hang high. But don't put Mickey Mantel up for judgment. That never happened. He was the only one that ever served time for that. If they did in fact enforce the law I wouldn't complain. He was the only on that ever went to jail.

Selective judgment at its best. They all did it, and I remember reading articles about how they all started reporting their income after Rose, at least for a time. None of them were straight. Pete was the villain though, so why not put him in jail as well? He was doing the same thing as hundreds of other people, including many hall of famers. Name one other person that went to jail for not reporting the autograph money.

Selective justice is not justice.

Please try to take a minute to assess that and think about the whole situation again. Pete Rose had to go to jail for that, and nobody else did. I guess nobody else broke the law.

Really?

[Snipe]

I never said it did happen. I'm simply disputing Snipe's point that it's not wrong if you bet on your own team.

That said, just because no one has made a claim or sued him doesn't mean it didn't happen either. We'll never know if he put someone at risk where the risk didn't play out.

Again, if you're a manager, player, etc, betting on baseball is wrong. Betting on games that you influence is even more wrong -- regardless of which way you bet.

He also lied ... for years ... to millions. That is also wrong. He didn't declare winnings on his gambling. That is also wrong--not just stupid.

Pete Rose has done so many bad things in his life it's not even funny. Yes, he is stupid, but to act as though he's severely mentally handicapped and that he was a good guy except for his stupidity doesn't hold water.

1) It is against the rules of baseball to bet against your own team.

2) That does not make it morally wrong. The rules of baseball could be changed to allow baking Jews in ovens, and that wouldn't make it right either. The rules of baseball have little to do with ethics. Betting on your own team to win is not morally wrong. If you think that is not the case, I would like to hear your argument.

3) What about incentive clauses in contracts? Win 100 games and you get another million? Didn't Pete Rose give himself an incentive clause by betting on his own team? The Dowd report said that he had a standing bet on his own team to win. Not a bet on this game or that game, but a standing bet on the Reds to win every game. That works out the same way as an incentive clause when you look at it. Are incentive clauses also wrong? I like paying coached for winning myself.

He did lie to people about it. I won't argue that. But you knew he way lying. You also knew that he never threw a game. That is at least my reasonalbe assumption of your thoughts, because no shred of evidence has ever been unearthed that shows that Pete ever threw a game. That is why I defend Pete. That man was the ultimate competator.

Back to the incentive clause again. We have those in baseball, basketball and football for some coaches. It is the equivalent to betting on the game because you gain when your team wins. You say that "Betting on games that you influence is even more wrong". I think that all coaches try hard to influence games for their own benefit. That is their job. That is what they get paid to do. Could you imagine a scenario where a coach didn't try to influence the game for their own benefit? Seriously. Coaches do try to influence games. They try to win. Pete had a standing bet to win, and I bet he tried to win every fucking one of them.

What about Chris Mack?

What if Chris Mack talked to his buddies and put up 10 grand against the Marquette to win? Would you ban him from coaching basketball? Would you banish him from the game? Chris Mack isn't poor stupid white trash, and he isn't going to do that, but what if he did? Would you condemn him for transgressing the unwritten law? Pete Rose is an obvious imbecile, and I want to defend him for what he is. He is an imbecile, and so what. He did nothing that was morally wrong. He played to win, and he coached to win, and nothing in the Dowd report says anything to the contrary. The Black Sox scandal was about throwing games, Peter Edward Rose bet on his own team to win. I hope that even a simpleton like you can see the difference.

And he went to jail too. He was the only one. I am not sure Pete ever did anything wrong other than being ignorant and poor white trash.

[Olsingledigit]

Conference tournament week I was in Las Vegas staying at the Mirage. In front of a Sports Memorabilia shop in the Mirage Retail Mall was one Pete Rose signing anything anyone would give him to sign - as long as they paid for it. (No I don't know the cost - I just kept walking on by). Sad in a way. He had two "entourage people" with him at the table.

[Xpectations]

1) It is against the rules of baseball to bet against your own team.

2) That does not make it morally wrong. The rules of baseball could be changed to allow baking Jews in ovens, and that wouldn't make it right either. The rules of baseball have little to do with ethics. Betting on your own team to win is not morally wrong. If you think that is not the case, I would like to hear your argument.

3) What about incentive clauses in contracts? Win 100 games and you get another million? Didn't Pete Rose give himself an incentive clause by betting on his own team? The Dowd report said that he had a standing bet on his own team to win. Not a bet on this game or that game, but a standing bet on the Reds to win every game. That works out the same way as an incentive clause when you look at it. Are incentive clauses also wrong? I like paying coached for winning myself.

He did lie to people about it. I won't argue that. But you knew he way lying. You also knew that he never threw a game. That is at least my reasonalbe assumption of your thoughts, because no shred of evidence has ever been unearthed that shows that Pete ever threw a game. That is why I defend Pete. That man was the ultimate competator.

Back to the incentive clause again. We have those in baseball, basketball and football for some coaches. It is the equivalent to betting on the game because you gain when your team wins. You say that "Betting on games that you influence is even more wrong". I think that all coaches try hard to influence games for their own benefit. That is their job. That is what they get paid to do. Could you imagine a scenario where a coach didn't try to influence the game for their own benefit? Seriously. Coaches do try to influence games. They try to win. Pete had a standing bet to win, and I bet he tried to win every fucking one of them.

What about Chris Mack?

What if Chris Mack talked to his buddies and put up 10 grand against the Marquette to win? Would you ban him from coaching basketball? Would you banish him from the game? Chris Mack isn't poor stupid white trash, and he isn't going to do that, but what if he did? Would you condemn him for transgressing the unwritten law? Pete Rose is an obvious imbecile, and I want to defend him for what he is. He is an imbecile, and so what. He did nothing that was morally wrong. He played to win, and he coached to win, and nothing in the Dowd report says anything to the contrary. The Black Sox scandal was about throwing games, Peter Edward Rose bet on his own team to win. I hope that even a simpleton like you can see the difference.

And he went to jail too. He was the only one. I am not sure Pete ever did anything wrong other than being ignorant and poor white trash.

I'll keep it simple. Unless you want to make it okay for people in baseball to bet on their own team (and you seem to be okay with that; I am not) then you cannot let Pete in.

It's wrong to do it. There were also rules against it. Pete knew about those rules. And while he may be stupid he was NEVER stupid enough to know it wasn't breaking baseball's most significant rules and that getting caught would have truly dire consequences.

[MADXSTER]

I'll keep it simple. Unless you want to make it okay for people in baseball to bet on their own team (and you seem to be okay with that; I am not) then you cannot let Pete in.

It's wrong to do it. There were also rules against it. Pete knew about those rules. And while he may be stupid he was NEVER stupid enough to know it wasn't breaking baseball's most significant rules and that getting caught would have truly dire consequences.

Expect, you are correct. Period. Let me add, I truly believe that even way back in the white sox scandel, it didn't dawn on anyone about betting for their own team to win. If someone would have thought about that way back then, my guess is that they would have said okay, maybe - maybe not. I do believe that there is a difference though. There are sins and there are mortal sins; both are bad. IMO way back when, they would have said it to be a sin to bet on your team to win, but not a mortal sin. Just my opinion. We will probably just need to agree to disagree.

[Backyard Champ]

What about Chris Mack?

What if Chris Mack talked to his buddies and put up 10 grand against the Marquette to win? Would you ban him from coaching basketball? Would you banish him from the game? Chris Mack isn't poor stupid white trash, and he isn't going to do that, but what if he did? Would you condemn him for transgressing the unwritten law? Pete Rose is an obvious imbecile, and I want to defend him for what he is. He is an imbecile, and so what. He did nothing that was morally wrong. He played to win, and he coached to win, and nothing in the Dowd report says anything to the contrary. The Black Sox scandal was about throwing games, Peter Edward Rose bet on his own team to win. I hope that even a simpleton like you can see the difference.


I don't understand the whole "what if Chris Mack did it" argument. I'm assuming it's against NCAA rules to bet on your team, and if Chris Mack did, I would want him punished. Listen, I know he is a good guy, and it would be painful to see, but yes he would deserve to be punished. It's simple, the rule might not be fair, but if you bet on baseball, you get punished. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if your betting on your team to win vs lose, the rule is no betting, Pete Rose bet, and got punished.

[Xpectations]

The Dowd report said that he had a standing bet on his own team to win. Not a bet on this game or that game, but a standing bet on the Reds to win every game.

By the way, where did you see this in the Dowd report?

The reason I ask is that Dowd has publicly stated that there were Reds games upon which Pete didn't place a bet.

He cited the 1987 season as an example, stating that if certain Reds pitchers were starting games, Pete would not bet on those games.

So while there wasn't necessarily incentive to lose those games, do you think he might have had any incentive to rest top relievers, key position players, etc. during those games? I certainly do.

Snipe, if there is no evidence that Pete placed a standing bet on the Reds (let alone evidence suggesting he clearly did not), do you reinstate him?

[Xpectations]

FYI ... just found the article (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2007-03-15-rose-dowd_N.htm)to which I was referring.

Excerpt:
Rose also told the network [ESPN] that the Dowd Report noted that Rose bet on every game while he was the Reds manager.

Not so, says Dowd.

"When (Mario) Soto and (Bill) Gullickson pitched, he didn't bet on the Reds," Dowd said on Thursday, when reached at his Washington, D.C., office. "We only put in the report what we could find and corroborate three different ways."

Dowd said he thinks Rose is hoping the admission will help him gain reinstatement into Baseball. Rose has been banned since 1989.

"Sounds to me like he's pandering to the commissioner. It's as though he's saying 'If I just say it this way, they'll let me back in the game.'"

Dowd said he thought this wasn't a sound strategy for reinstatement.

"OK, he's now admitted he violated the capital crime of baseball every single day. Now he's saying 'I violated Rule 21 every day.' And baseball is now supposed to let him back into the game?"

The Dowd Report says Rose bet on the Reds 52 times in 1987. Each Major League Baseball team plays 162 games.

So the Dowd Report definitely did NOT find that Pete placed a standing bet on his team. In fact, it found the opposite -- that Pete frequently did not bet on Reds games.

[muskienick]

I have never understood the rule against betting on one's own team TO WIN. Now if you bet on your own team to lose and you were either the manager or a playing member of the team, you would be in a position to effectively have a direct negative effect in your team's performance and give yourself an unfair advantage to win money.

In essence, by betting on your own team to lose when you can directly effect the outcome of the game in that direction (and thus, improve your bank account unfairly), you would be doing something very much akin to taking performance-enhancing drugs. I.e. putting yourself in a position to unfairly enhance your bankroll.

Even if Pete bet on his team to win every night as a player or manager, any play he made, hit he got, or substiution he made would have been to try to win the game (and, hence, his bet). Any smart manager or player would have made the same moves or otherwise tried his best at bat and in the field to get his team a win even without betting on a game (or at least that's what the owners and fans expect).

So, what is wrong with betting on your own team to win? (And don't try to say that he might try too hard to win by pitching his closer a fourth day in a row and, thus, endanger the condition of his arm. After all, if he doesn't plan on retiring the minute after the game is over, he would be concerned about the long-term welfare of his team as well as his chances for winning bets on his team in the future!)

[SixFig]

I have never understood the rule against betting on one's own team TO WIN. Now if you bet on your own team to lose and you were either the manager or a playing member of the team, you would be in a position to effectively have a direct negative effect in your team's performance and give yourself an unfair advantage to win money.

In essence, by betting on your own team to lose when you can directly effect the outcome of the game in that direction (and thus, improve your bank account unfairly), you would be doing something very much akin to taking performance-enhancing drugs. I.e. putting yourself in a position to unfairly enhance your bankroll.

Even if Pete bet on his team to win every night as a player or manager, any play he made, hit he got, or substiution he made would have been to try to win the game (and, hence, his bet). Any smart manager or player would have made the same moves or otherwise tried his best at bat and in the field to get his team a win even without betting on a game (or at least that's what the owners and fans expect).

So, what is wrong with betting on your own team to win? (And don't try to say that he might try too hard to win by pitching his closer a fourth day in a row and, thus, endanger the condition of his arm. After all, if he doesn't plan on retiring the minute after the game is over, he would be concerned about the long-term welfare of his team as well as his chances for winning bets on his team in the future!)

He didn't be on his team every night.

[Xpectations]

I have never understood the rule against betting on one's own team TO WIN. Now if you bet on your own team to lose and you were either the manager or a playing member of the team, you would be in a position to effectively have a direct negative effect in your team's performance and give yourself an unfair advantage to win money.

In essence, by betting on your own team to lose when you can directly effect the outcome of the game in that direction (and thus, improve your bank account unfairly), you would be doing something very much akin to taking performance-enhancing drugs. I.e. putting yourself in a position to unfairly enhance your bankroll.

Even if Pete bet on his team to win every night as a player or manager, any play he made, hit he got, or substiution he made would have been to try to win the game (and, hence, his bet). Any smart manager or player would have made the same moves or otherwise tried his best at bat and in the field to get his team a win even without betting on a game (or at least that's what the owners and fans expect).

So, what is wrong with betting on your own team to win? (And don't try to say that he might try too hard to win by pitching his closer a fourth day in a row and, thus, endanger the condition of his arm. After all, if he doesn't plan on retiring the minute after the game is over, he would be concerned about the long-term welfare of his team as well as his chances for winning bets on his team in the future!)

Nick, similar question I asked Snipe: Do you think differently if Pete did not bet on EVERY game?

Again, the evidence is overwhelming that Pete chose certain Reds games to bet on and chose not to bet on others. That creates ENORMOUS incentive to manage one group of games differently than the other group, such as resting players that would be valuable to use in the next game upon which you intend to place a bet.

[Porkopolis]

Nick, similar question I asked Snipe: Do you think differently if Pete did not bet on EVERY game?

Again, the evidence is overwhelming that Pete chose certain Reds games to bet on and chose not to bet on others. That creates ENORMOUS incentive to manage one group of games differently than the other group, such as resting players that would be valuable to use in the next game upon which you intend to place a bet.

Indeed. Resting players and increasing your probability of losing in one group of games would also move the line in the games you intended to bet on, which of course would make your winnings bigger. Another concern would be one player/coach placing a bet in their favor on behalf of a player/coach on the other team, while the other party intends to throw the game and split the pot all along. There is simply no good reason to allow gambling by participants.

[bobbiemcgee]

Pete joining Fox Sports. What are the odds?

[paulxu]

Pretty good.

[94GRAD]

Pete joining Fox Sports. What are the odds?

100%

[The Coz]

There is a Verducci column at si.com that talks about the pathetic performance in day games since they outlawed amphetamines as part of the CBA. Pete did love his vitamins. An open secret the Q's of the world chose to ignore.
Also, everyone knows the west side is where man and beast live as one.

[bobbiemcgee]

back then we just called them diet pills - perfectly legal.

[bjf123]

Didn't the ball players call them greenies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobbiemcgee]

Didn't the ball players call them greenies?


Everybody called them greenies due to their light green color, but were white as well. They were great for hangovers and fatigue but definitely not performance enhancers.

[Juice]

Everybody called them greenies due to their light green color, but were white as well. They were great for hangovers and fatigue but definitely not performance enhancers.

Amphetamines weren't used for performance enhancing?

[xu82]

back then we just called them diet pills - perfectly legal.

That's the Colorado way...

[wkrq59]

There is a Verducci column at si.com that talks about the pathetic performance in day games since they outlawed amphetamines as part of the CBA. Pete did love his vitamins. An open secret the Q's of the world chose to ignore.
Also, everyone knows the west side is where man and beast live as one.


Yes, they were quite legal, but only with a doctor's script. I took 'em for weight control for several (2.5) years but stopped them because I did not like their side effects. If I could count all of the present Hall of Fame members who used those damn things and if I added, "Those who did, get out of the hall," and if they had to do so, the moving vans for the busts and other stuff would stretch for miles.
BTW: i am well aware that Pete Rose is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am also aware that if the man who had 4256 hits during his career as a player is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame then there really is no hall as far as I am concerned.
I believe baseball ignored another "open secret" when it turned a blind eye toward the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs in order to "save the game " that Bud Selleg and cohorts ruined.
Let's face a simple fact. Had Pete Rose played for an east coast, especially a New York team, he'd be back in baseball and in the hall a long time ago. Also, I have two pieces of information I received from a friend who I can't disclose that tells me Rose should never have been banned for life even though he was guilty as hell.
I truly believe that you can not legislate morality and I also believe that baseball has as much integrity as it has mercy which is damned little if any. I am so damned sick of the holier than thous who wrap themselves in the flag, the pious memories of ancient days and become like whitened seplcuers with rotting corpses when the sport they espouse has been paid to advertise casinos and the "fantasy" leagues and actually runs fantasy leagues. To me, the whole sacrosanct "one sacred rule you can't violate" is bull kaakaa. And Kenesaw Mountain Landis sucks green buttermilk.
Oh, even though I was born 78 years ago on the east side of town and lived in northWEST Cincinnati I am proud of my "bear" heritage and we aren't all beasts, there is Smoky and Pooh and that Trio whose dwelling was defiled by the home-invading blonde bitch and the Boston hockey team, UCLA, California-Berkley, Montana, Brown and Memphis of the NBA.

[Cheesehead]

Yes, they were quite legal, but only with a doctor's script. I took 'em for weight control for several (2.5) years but stopped them because I did not like their side effects. If I could count all of the present Hall of Fame members who used those damn things and if I added, "Those who did, get out of the hall," and if they had to do so, the moving vans for the busts and other stuff would stretch for miles.
BTW: i am well aware that Pete Rose is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am also aware that if the man who had 4256 hits during his career as a player is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame then there really is no hall as far as I am concerned.
I believe baseball ignored another "open secret" when it turned a blind eye toward the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs in order to "save the game " that Bud Selleg and cohorts ruined.
Let's face a simple fact. Had Pete Rose played for an east coast, especially a New York team, he'd be back in baseball and in the hall a long time ago. Also, I have two pieces of information I received from a friend who I can't disclose that tells me Rose should never have been banned for life even though he was guilty as hell.
I truly believe that you can not legislate morality and I also believe that baseball has as much integrity as it has mercy which is damned little if any. I am so damned sick of the holier than thous who wrap themselves in the flag, the pious memories of ancient days and become like whitened seplcuers with rotting corpses when the sport they espouse has been paid to advertise casinos and the "fantasy" leagues and actually runs fantasy leagues. To me, the whole sacrosanct "one sacred rule you can't violate" is bull kaakaa. And Kenesaw Mountain Landis sucks green buttermilk.
Oh, even though I was born 78 years ago on the east side of town and lived in northWEST Cincinnati I am proud of my "bear" heritage and we aren't all beasts, there is Smoky and Pooh and that Trio whose dwelling was defiled by the home-invading blonde bitch and the Boston hockey team, UCLA, California-Berkley, Montana, Brown and Memphis of the NBA.

Preach, Q!!

[nuts4xu]

Great to see Q come off the mat swinging!

[chico]

Yes, they were quite legal, but only with a doctor's script. I took 'em for weight control for several (2.5) years but stopped them because I did not like their side effects. If I could count all of the present Hall of Fame members who used those damn things and if I added, "Those who did, get out of the hall," and if they had to do so, the moving vans for the busts and other stuff would stretch for miles.
BTW: i am well aware that Pete Rose is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am also aware that if the man who had 4256 hits during his career as a player is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame then there really is no hall as far as I am concerned.
I believe baseball ignored another "open secret" when it turned a blind eye toward the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs in order to "save the game " that Bud Selleg and cohorts ruined.
Let's face a simple fact. Had Pete Rose played for an east coast, especially a New York team, he'd be back in baseball and in the hall a long time ago. Also, I have two pieces of information I received from a friend who I can't disclose that tells me Rose should never have been banned for life even though he was guilty as hell.
I truly believe that you can not legislate morality and I also believe that baseball has as much integrity as it has mercy which is damned little if any. I am so damned sick of the holier than thous who wrap themselves in the flag, the pious memories of ancient days and become like whitened seplcuers with rotting corpses when the sport they espouse has been paid to advertise casinos and the "fantasy" leagues and actually runs fantasy leagues. To me, the whole sacrosanct "one sacred rule you can't violate" is bull kaakaa. And Kenesaw Mountain Landis sucks green buttermilk.
Oh, even though I was born 78 years ago on the east side of town and lived in northWEST Cincinnati I am proud of my "bear" heritage and we aren't all beasts, there is Smoky and Pooh and that Trio whose dwelling was defiled by the home-invading blonde bitch and the Boston hockey team, UCLA, California-Berkley, Montana, Brown and Memphis of the NBA.

The story I heard was Rose was offered a one year suspension by Ueberroth, after which he'd be back in baseball as if nothing happened. Rose of course said he did nothing wrong and wouldn't take the deal. Ueberroth showed him the Dowd report - basically showing him they had him dead to rights. He also warned Rose that the next guy coming in was not going to be as lenient. Rose still wouldn't take the deal, and the rest is history.

[blobfan]

The story I heard was Rose was offered a one year suspension by Ueberroth, after which he'd be back in baseball as if nothing happened. Rose of course said he did nothing wrong and wouldn't take the deal. Ueberroth showed him the Dowd report - basically showing him they had him dead to rights. He also warned Rose that the next guy coming in was not going to be as lenient. Rose still wouldn't take the deal, and the rest is history.

That's the most repeated reason I've heard as well. Rose just wouldn't humble himself and take the penalty. I do think he will be in the Hall of Fame but not sure it will be during his lifetime.

[muskiefan82]

Pete is smarter than all of us. He has made more money off of NOT being in the HOF than he ever woudl have had he been elected. He had this all planned out so he could make millions off of being banned. Brilliant I say!!! Brilliant!!!!

Or it's just dumb luck.

[X-band '01]

I'm sure it goes beyond the point of death - why haven't any of the Black Sox players been elected to the Hall since their banishment? Pete Rose gets MORE fame out of being banned than he does by being in the Hall. Nice little irony if you ask me.

Just imagine how much fun baseball would be if they had a rogue umpire like Tim Donaghy was for the NBA.


Pete is smarter than all of us. He has made more money off of NOT being in the HOF than he ever woudl have had he been elected. He had this all planned out so he could make millions off of being banned. Brilliant I say!!! Brilliant!!!!

Or it's just dumb luck.

So, what are the odds that Rose will be reinstated now?

[GoMuskies]

So, what are the odds that Rose will be reinstated now?

What a scuzzbucket. It's a shame that the city of Cincinnati gets associated with him.

[RealDeal]

What a scuzzbucket. It's a shame that the city of Cincinnati gets associated with him.

Exactly. Can't Vegas adopt him?

[xubrew]

What a scuzzbucket. It's a shame that the city of Cincinnati gets associated with him.

The Reds should have to forfeit the 1975 and 1976 World Series. Because....my GOD that would be hilarious!!!

[Cheesehead]

I think Pete should just stick to signing at sports shows and his Fox Sports gig. Pete would sign your junk for money, by the way.

He is done. There will be no reinstatement now with this new tidbit. Pete is the Lance Armstrong of betting.

[X-band '01]

The Reds should have to forfeit the 1975 and 1976 World Series. Because....my GOD that would be hilarious!!!

I prefer to think of how many times the Reds could have made the playoffs in the late 1980s. There were 2nd-place finishes from 1985 to 1988 when he was manager; how many games did the Reds lose because of gambling?

[blobfan]

I still think he'll be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Just not while he is alive.

[paulxu]

Sports has changed a lot since I was young. The Pete Rose story is a sad one, especially for a life long Red's fan.
His story of hard work and determination to make it in the majors is now tainted forever.
So far I haven't read anything that says he bet against his own team, and that's a very small consolation prize.

When I see the recent members of the 3,000 hit club and it's not a real big group, and know that some of them come during the chemical era, I'd like to somehow remember fondly that they are still a LONG way from 4256. This all really is a downer for me.

[X-band '01]

It's too bad that Ichiro Suzuki didn't play his entire career in MLB; otherwise he'd be making a run at the hits record (or, at a minimum, the 4,000 hit club).

[chico]

I prefer to think of how many times the Reds could have made the playoffs in the late 1980s. There were 2nd-place finishes from 1985 to 1988 when he was manager; how many games did the Reds lose because of gambling?

Actually, these teams are pretty good evidence that Rose was betting on his teams to win. Look at his September record during his tenure. They would make these mad dashes to get within 4 games then fall off in the last week - he was riding his players the entire way because he had money on the games. No playing the call-ups when the rosters expanded for Pete - those guys only cost him money.

[xubrew]

I actually like Pete Rose. Flaws and all. I just think there's something admirable to a guy that goes so hard after what he wants, even if some of those things were against the rules. I never thought for one second that he didn't bet on baseball, but I also never thought he'd admit it. I guess it was a great marketing ploy for selling his book, which he'll autograph for you (for a price) at the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony every year. I really can't help but laugh at that. No one is bigger than him in his own mind.

[Juice]

Actually, these teams are pretty good evidence that Rose was betting on his teams to win. Look at his September record during his tenure. They would make these mad dashes to get within 4 games then fall off in the last week - he was riding his players the entire way because he had money on the games. No playing the call-ups when the rosters expanded for Pete - those guys only cost him money.

Or maybe the development of younger guys

[MADXSTER]

Doesn't anyone think the timing of this is a bit odd? Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist but now that there is talk of Pete getting back into the Hall, new evidence comes out. hmmm. Not saying that the evidence is wrong but it seems to me that someone was holding onto this info for the right time. And that right time is when there is talk about rose getting back into the Hall. Would ESPN do something like this for ratings? Especially to someone working at Fox? Would they pick Jenner for the ESPY award over Lauren Hill for ratings? Me calls FUBAR.

[X-band '01]

Actually, these teams are pretty good evidence that Rose was betting on his teams to win. Look at his September record during his tenure. They would make these mad dashes to get within 4 games then fall off in the last week - he was riding his players the entire way because he had money on the games. No playing the call-ups when the rosters expanded for Pete - those guys only cost him money.

So what about days when Pete didn't bet the Reds would win?

Either way, if you're betting as a player OR manager or other position within a team directly involving said team, you're banned for life. Period.

[X-band '01]

Doesn't anyone think the timing of this is a bit odd? Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist but now that there is talk of Pete getting back into the Hall, new evidence comes out. hmmm. Not saying that the evidence is wrong but it seems to me that someone was holding onto this info for the right time. And that right time is when there is talk about rose getting back into the Hall. Would ESPN do something like this for ratings? Especially to someone working at Fox? Would they pick Jenner for the ESPY award over Lauren Hill for ratings? Me calls FUBAR.

There's been talk for years about reinstatement. Maybe he was close to doing so this time.

Forget the Hall of Fame, does MLB still allow Pete Rose to partake in All-Star festivities in a couple of weeks?

[MADXSTER]

There's been talk for years about reinstatement. Maybe he was close to doing so this time.

It's been gaining a lot of steam this past last year. And how about releasing the info right before the All-Star game, you know, the one in Cincinnati.

I still call FUBAR

[D-West & PO-Z]

It was pretty much assumed this was the case. I don't think this changes much. Maybe his chances of reinstatement go from 2% to 1%. Doesn't really change much. People's opinions of him last week are the same this week.