From this article:
IMHO this should slam the door shut once and for all over his eligility for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I hope that Rose does in fact get reinstated, but that he never gets voted in to the HoF.
You hope he is reinstated, but does not get in the Hall of Fame. What kind of logic is that? His getting into the Hall of Fame is what this question is all about. Do you think his record doesn’t merit being put in the Hall of Fame or are you saying that he should continue to be punished by the sports writers that would elect him. In my mind, he should either be reinstated 100% or remain in exile. Anything else is BS.
I always thought that Babe Ruth, and Ty Cobb also bet on baseball.
All 3 should be thrown out, or else all 3 should be let in. If you dont want Rose in there, then take out Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb.
Why let Babe Ruth in the Hall of Fame but not Rose if they both, at least once, made a bet on the game?
What is the evidence that Ruth and Cobb ever bet on the game?
Not to defend Rose, but he can’t possibly be the only player among the thousands of players in the history of the sport to have bet on the game. Even their own teams.
I don’t see anything wrong with betting on your own team to win. I don’t think that admitting he gambled on baseball and apologizing (kissing Bud Selig’s ass) should have anything to do with his getting into the HOF. He deserves it because he was one on the greatest players of all time, period. I don’t care if he sucked Saddam Hussein’s dick. I think it’s particularly ironic that a sport that is chock full of cheaters, liars and general assholes should get all sanctimonious about this.
There is no evidence they did.
Um, why would you kick Ruth and Cobb out when there’s no believable evidence they bet on baseball? There IS believable evidence Rose bet on baseball. There is none that Ruth did, and all the witnesses are dead now so no evidence is likely to come out now.
An Arky:
There’s nothing ironic about it. Nothing illogical or contradictory about it whatsoever. It’s a perfectly logical rule of professional conduct.
Look at it this way; if you were a psychiatrist, you would not lose your license for being an asshole. You would not lose your license for gambling in Vegas, or drinking, or cheating on your wife. You absolutely WOULD lose your license for gossiping about your patients, though. On a moral scale, is gossiping worse than cheating on your wife? No… but there are good reasons why the psychiatry profession has to BAN people for gossiping about their patients.
There are perfectly good reasons why Rule 21 exists in baseball to ban people who bet on games they’re involved in. That sort of behaviour nearly destroyed baseball once and could destroy it again. Rose deserved what he got.
Betting on your own team is not without issues. Since Rose was manager he could for example let a relief pitcher stay in longer than normal. That would help win the game that day, but perhaps tire him out for the next two games, hurting the teams season. All this because Rose wanted to win one particular game.
Once you start betting, you put into question your motivations on and off the field.
Maybe this thread could wait until the book comes out and we can all see that he did say he bet on baseball. “A source says” doesn’t cut it for me.
Hey, I’m definitely not denying he bet on baseball - the evidence is pretty damning. But he hasn’t admitted diddly. Wouldn’t it make more sense to actually hear his thoughts before commenting on them?
Sure. But the Hall of Fame is a post-career award for great players. He was a great player. He deserves to be in the HOF for what he did on the field. He also deserved to be kicked out for gambling. These things are separate, IMHO. Sammy Sosa got busted with a corked bat and it’s very likely he’ll be in the Hall of Fame when the time comes, and he will deserve it, because he’s a great player. They’re just doing this to make Rose cry “uncle”, and they are no less crooked than him, so it’s all a bunch of hypocritical bs.
This is funny. I’m not a Pete Rose fan, though I recognize he was a great player. And recognizing that he was a great player is what the Hall of Fame is supposed to be about. They are wrongly making the gambling issue an obstacle to his rightful place in the hall.
Gambling on baseball, like it or not, is the rule that supercedes all others with respect (ahem) to the sanctity of the game. There are certainly bad people in the HoF, but not one who violated this cardinal rule (and got caught). I feel that what Selig is doing by reinstating (potentially) Rose is wrong, and that for him to get reinstated yet not gain entry in to the HoF would get Bud just desserts.
I dont think anyone has ever truely made an honest effort to find out if Babe Ruth ever made a bet on a game, or on winning the world series, whatever, in an attempt to get Babe Ruth kicked out of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I think it is possible for someone today to find out that Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb gambled, or made a bet while they were in baseball. There are plenty of memoirs, newspapers, and books, and letters to sift thru if we truely wanted to keep gamblers out of the Hall of Fame.
Heck, even if Babe Ruth meremy made a bet against an opposing player as to who would buy dinner or drinks depending on who won the game - that would be gambling(the amount of money involved is besides the point).
Im pretty sure(I thought I once saw a news clip of Ruth at a race track) that Babe Ruth went to the race track during his life(easily checked by sifting thru newspapers during that time period) , which would means that Ruth had no strict moral standard against gambling per se. A little more earnest delving into his personal life style, might find that Ruth did make a wager of some kind on baseball while he was playing.
It also wouldnt matter when the rule against gambling came about, you cant let some gamblers into the Hall of Fame and not others. How a bet might affect the outcome of any game would be the same whether the bet was made before or after the rule was instituted.
If you only want people who have “high moral standards” in the Hall of Fame, then having a rule against gambling is pretty tame- why not keep out anyone who ever thru a spit ball, or who ever intentionally threw a baseball at another player, or who ever got into a fight with another baseball player, or who ever committed a felony, whoever beat his wife, who ever went to a prositute, who violated our Prohibition laws, anyone whoever missed a practice session, etc?
There are lots of behaviors that might affect the outcome of a game(s) more than making a bet that you will win it.
An alcoholic or drunk player/manager, or a player who has ever used drugs (or steroids) would more likely have a greater affect on the outcome than a small wager.
To kick out Rose because he bet on his team to win, while letting someone else in who has admitted to using steroids, is stupid.
I also find it highly hypocritical for Rose, or anyone else to be kicked out of the Hall of FAme because of gambling, because most men that I know who like professional sports - personally gamble themselves.
I really cant think of any men I know who watch sports games, who dont bet on games, who dont bet on who pays for the drinks, who dont participate in football or baseball pools at work, etc.
If professional sports fans are really against “gambling”, you would never know it by watching what they do or say.
I would seriously doubt that ‘most men’ who enjoy sports also gamble (other than nickel and dime backyard stuff). I’m as avid a sports fan as there is and among my circle none of us bother to do more than talk about the betting line and such.
This story has been in the works for at least a month. I think it was Joe Sheehan at the Baseball Prospectus who first put two and two together regarding the HoF announcement (Tuesday) the release of the Rose book (Thursday), the fact that preview copies of the book were not going out (odd), and the potential for Bud Selig to move Rose off the front burner. From a PR standpoint the easiest way for MLB to get rid of Rose is to make him eligible and let him in…then he’s out of their hair forever.
Neyer covered this a week or so ago, too. But I do think BP had it first.
Just so I can try to follow your logic, you are saying that playing for and managing a MLB team is the same as liking professional sports?
I think she means the fans who want to keep Rose out are being hypocritical. It’s okay for a non-player to gamble, but not the players.
Just a WAG.
The part of this I don’t understand is that “lifetime ban” has morphed into “eternal ban.” None of the players banned in their own lifetimes has been readmitted to baseball, posthumously.
Roses’s stats are in the Hall, why shouldn’t he be in the Hall?
What about that team that threw the World Series back in the early 1900s? Some of those guys are in the Hall. If they are going to ban Rose for betting, they should throw those guys out of the Hall.
Personally, I think it’s stupid to ban him from Baseball, but they give drug abusers (Dwight Gooden and the like) chance after chance after chance. Rose was a hell of a better role model than the Drug Crew, but you wouldn’t know that by Baseball’s hypocritical standards.
HomeoftheBraves wrote: “What about that team that threw the World Series back in the early 1900s? Some of those guys are in the Hall. If they are going to ban Rose for betting, they should throw those guys out of the Hall.”
obviously, you don’t follow baseball closely enough to understand
a)that that team was the 1919 White Sox, nor that the only White Sox to be elected to the Hall are those that have been demonstrated to have NOT bet on the 1919 Series. The other 8 have been and still are banned for life.
So now that you can’t play the hypocrisy card, what else can you dream up? Drug use, btw, is not specifically prohibited as resulting in a lifetime ban, as gambling is.
Did you just admit that men who watch sports DO!! gamble on sports?