Rose vote on reinstatement

Great Debates
21

Satan,

I respect your opposing opinion, however I’d like to challenge it.

The emphasis in your argument against Pete Rose is that his actions harmed not only the game of baseball, but all sports.

Supposing that he is guilty of all of which he has been accused, I contend that the harm that resulted to the game of baseball and “all of sports” was minimal and probably unmeasurable. So I guess I don’t buy the “harm” angle unless someone can quantify it for me. You, nor anyone else has given anything more than a “philosophical” or “emotional” argument in support of the “harm” theory.

Real “harm” to the game of baseball as I see it, comes only in two possible forms:

  • fan interest

and

  • revenue

I do not believe that there was a measurable downturn in either of those areas as a direct result of the Rose “scandal”, and certainly now, both fan interest and revenue are at all time highs.

At the professional level, the game exists for the livelyhood of the owners and players, and for the enjoyment of the fans. I feel that it is extremely important for MLB to carefully consider the opinion of these three groups in the Rose reinstatement decision.

From every poll that I’ve seen, the fans overwhelmingly want Pete back. The owners of at least two MLB franchises, the Reds and the Phillies want Pete to take part in ceremonies this summer. How many more MLB franchise owners might not object to a Rose return? I haven’t seen any feedback from the players, though several seemed to quickly jump to his support in the Gray situation. I’d be interested to know the results of a player poll.

Secondly, Pete’s punishment wasn’t a “life sentence with no chance of parole”. Baseball agreed to a sentence of life with an option for application for reinstatement, esentially, a chance for “parole”.

A majority of the main class of “victims”, the fans, are open and agreeable to his parole (reinstatement).

Many feel that the sentence served has been sufficient in length. Anyone that knows anything about Pete has to realize that being suspended from any aspect of the game he loves for so many years already has had to have been very painful. I don’t doubt that a proper example has been made of him and any deterent affect that MLB had hoped to acheive amongst active players or managers would in no way be lessed by his reinstatement.

I seriously doubt that his reinstatement would send the message that it’s OK to gamble. Players and manager salaries have continued to rise and now more than ever these people have a lot to lose if gambling activity is discovered.

To summarize, the main reasons that I (and many others) think it is OK to reinstate Rose is:

  • Harm was negligible

  • He has served an adequately painful sentence, certainly one that is in line with the alleged offense

  • He was offered the option to apply for reinstatement

  • A strong majority of the people that matter want him back

Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy

22

Krispy, you want him to have a chance at parole? Fine. Do you know how a parole board works? When the parole board meets the prisoner, the first thing they look for are signs of true repentance. They don’t count up the number of supportive friends the prisoner has, or the great job he had before he screwed up. They see if he is sorry for what he has done, and they see if he is trying to turn his life around. If he comes up to the parole board and says,“I don’t have anything to admit, I didn’t do it, and I have here 3,000 letters from people that want me out of prison!” he gets escorted back to his little cell.

23

I hadn’t realized that prisoners that maintained their innocence never got paroled.

I also hadn’t realized that the wishes of the victims were ignored.

Thanks once again for telling me the way it really works slythe.

If it wasn’t for you I might have even thought that prisoners were sometimes paroled for the mere reason of prison overcrowding.

Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy

24

I think we all need to recognize that there’s not a person on this board who can truly make an informed judgement on Pete Rose’s status. The reason being is that not one of us is privy to the information contained in the Dowd report upon which his banishment was based.

If he bet on games involving his own team as has been rumored, he absolutely has no place being associated with the game.

Is the game overly paranoid about gambling? Perhaps, but the game was nearly destroyed by the Black Sox scandal and to forget those lessons would be foolhardy.

Krispy, I don’t think you can blindly say no harm was done to the game for the reason I have given above. Also, I do not believe the game exists for players, owners and fans. The game at the professional level exists for one reason and one reason only - to make money. When it can no longer make money, it will be gone.

25

I think I can.

I think I can because of the very example that you supply.

With the Pete scandal, the game was not nearly destroyed. Not even close. I’m still waiting for any proof of harm.

You don’t have the proof either…do you?

Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy

26

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that you wrote:

If you care to reread what I wrote, I said that at the professional level, the game exists for the livelyhood of the owners and players and for the entertainment of the fans.

The word “livelyhood” refers to the money-earning aspect. The fans as far as I know don’t get paid, their role is to enjoy the game and to pay for the pleasure of enjoying it.

So I guess I don’t understand what you were trying to accomplish by trying to correct me.

Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy

27

**

Actually, the emphasis of my point was that he was in a position where it was very easy for him to effect the games as theey were played. As much as we all abhor what some athletes do, the fact is that they do not.

Remember when game shows in the '50s got in trouble for fixes, how much shit it caused? And the Black Sox Scandal DID almost kill baseball - if it wasn’t for Babe Ruth and the home run coming to prominance in the early 20’s (and in the media capital of the country at the time), many baseball historians question how the game would have ever survived or at least prospered to the level it did from the Great Depression to the second World War.

**

There is one rule which is sacred - gambling on your sport is wrong. Pete knew this. Every athlete knows this. The fact that he did this, and lied about it (repeatedly) and has shown no remorse tells me that Rose is keen on cutting off his nose to spite his face.

It does not matter the damage he did. Drunk drivers get pulled over all te time and many lose their driving priviledges, often indefinitely. Do all of them werap their cars around a tree or take a school bus out? No. But they have a certain potential to do so, and drivers are well aware that driving drunk is illegal. Same difference.

[quuote]Real “harm” to the game of baseball as I see it, comes only in two possible forms:

  • fan interest
    and
  • revenue
    [/quote]

Well, if baseball really and truly cared about the former, they wouldn’t have cancelled a World Series one year over the latter, one would think.

Baseball often fucks itself in the ass without vaseline. And I am very critical of the instituution and the people behind it when they do.

But I don’t believe that in this case they are doing that. Baseball is trying to do the right thing, and for that I applaud them, for it is a minority opinion (for the reasons I outlined n my previous post), and it would be really easy to cave in to sentiment.

As I’m sure you are aware, Krispy, being in the majority does not mean you are right, it only means that others think like you.

**

Well, you kind of refute your own argument there. If baseball interest and the revenue they put in baseball’s pockets are as high as you say, there do not seem to be a massive back-lash of people who are saying, “Until Rose is reinstated, I will not give them my money.”

So if it’s not broken, even if it WAS just about the fans and money, why fix it?

**

Again, I must say that being in the majority doesn’t make it right.

**

Well, speaking for the Yankees who came to Rose’s defense, they were doing it because they were critical of Grey, not because they necessarily embraced Rose.

Johnny Bench, a friend and former teamate of Rose’s, was shocked at what Grey did, but still is on the record that Rose was wrong and is being appropriately punished.

Just because one thinks Grey was an opportunistic, caustic presence does not excuse Rose. And I said that the second it happened.

**

The agreement also called for baseball to supress the majority of the evidence against him. Rose signed that agreement. I don’t care about his motivations for doing so. He signed it. If he really was innocent and thought he would one day be able to clear his name, he shouldn’t have. He signed his own sentance. My guess is he had a really good reason to.

**

I disagree. Greed makes millionaire Wall Street traders commit white collar crimes. And gamblers will always be able to tempt someone with money or not.

Tolerating what Rose did in any way or form says that you CAN get away with it. Whether people do that afterward is irrelevant. I’d rather not give them a reason to think they can.

After all, Rose knew that Shoeless Joe Jackson, with amazing stats, is not in the HOF. If that didn’t dissuade him, foorgiving Rose will do nothing to deter others like Rose who might come along.

**

Rose is free to reapply whenever he wishes. He’s doing it now, according to Rose’s attourneys. This does not mean he SHOULD be reinstatted. That is up to Selig, and he doesn’t seem to keen on the idea. Rose’s tactics in this matter - another issue - are also not exactly endearing him to Selig.

Yer pal,
Satan

28

No, Krispy. Prisoners are NOT paroled if they insist that they never did the crime they are in for. They might get an early release because of overcrowding, but a parole board will not, REPEAT, will not parole a non-repentant prisonor in denial.
Krispy, this isn’t a matter of guilt or innocence to you, is it? You are a fan, and you will forgive your idol anything. Well, I don’t believe in your little god of baseball.

29

By the way, here’s my really good emotional argument for a Rose reinstatement:

I figure that the are probably at least 1 million lifelong, diehard Reds fans. We are being punished by Bud Selig and MLB. We are deprived of one of our baseball heros. Unless Selig relents, we will be deprived of Pete’s presence for the upcoming celebration and ceremonies in remembrence of the 1975 Big Red Machine.

Why should we continue to be punished?

We might think that it’s hypocritical that MLB now allows and gambling establishment to sponsor the 2000 season for the San Diego Padres.

Some of us think that you die hard baseball lovers of other teams might feel more like we do if one of your most beloved icons was banned. What if for instance Henry Aaron were to have never been allowed to rejoin the Braves in an administrative capacity due to his one time employment at a casino? What if Mantle had been banned for his association with a casino?

For that matter, if you want to talk basketball, did the NBA suffer in any way because of Micheal Jordan’s outrageous golf gambling problem? If Jordan would have been banned the fans would have revolted and the banning itself might have caused harm to the game. Bulls fans would have been hurting. They would have been able to understand where some of Reds fans are coming from.

Please Mr. Selig, let us have our Pete back.

Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy

30

Satan,

Ah yes, but one traditional benefit of being in the majority, especially a vast majority, is that is you can often affect different decisions, standards or rules. There is most certainly strength in numbers and I think my kind has the numbers on this one.

Yeah, some of you have refered to the Blacksox scandal, but you know, this time it’s different. Baseball didn’t suffer this time did it? You’ve got to admit that allegations of gamblimg doesn’t necessarily corelate to harm to the game…right? If that’s true, then you have to rethink the severity of the penalty because the crime wasn’t as dangerous or severe as what you might have thought it was.

Exactly. Sheesh, looks like you might even agree that people like Bud Selig have been a much bigger danger to the collapse of the game than Pete Rose ever was. These people, one of which now sits in judgement of Pete, are themselves guilty of unpunished crimes against baseball.

Ahh, but Satan, there’s the beauty dude. Do the math. If there are many more people that favor reinstatement and might have a tendency to spend more if Pete’s reinstated, when you subtract the potential lost revenues from the disgruntled minority, baseball comes out money ahead.

Friend? Really? Yeah, they were teammates alright, but Pete and Johnny never really did get on so well. They were two completely different kind of guys that didn’t relate well to one another off the field. My impression is that it’s a bit of sour grapes with Johnny.

Nah. He was tolerated to particpate in the Team of the Century ceremony. Are you saying that his particpation sent a message that you can get away with gambling?

Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy

31

[sarcasm]Pleeeze, Mr. Selig, we want our hero to get what he truly deserves. Forget the fact that he bet on baseball and other sports, and refuses to admit it. Forget the fact that your hands are tied because you are not allowed to show us the evidence(the evidence doesn’t matter to us anyway!). And besides, until every single transgression by every other player in the league is punished, we don’t think that it’s fair that you pick on our poor little Petey. In our opinion, the popular players are above the rules, so why don’t you go pick on someone with a poorer sports record who we don’t care about.[/sarcasm]

32

I accept the characterization.

Yes, we do raise fairness as an issue, and yes, I do admit that we notice other transgressions unpunished as well as mixed signals, such as a gambling establishment being allowed to sponsor the 2000 Padres season.

No, you could almost argue the reverse is true. The superstar (Rose) gets slammed, whereas the mediocre player (Howe) gets 7 chances. So it doesn’t look like “popular players” are above the rules, it rather looks like popular players get slammed harder by the rules because they are popular.

Krispy Original – The original SDMB bad boy

33

Krispy,
Athletes gambling on the outcome of their games undermines the integrity of the event itself. I am truly surprised that you can’t understand that idea. It seems your hero worship overrides any other considerations in this matter.

Pete Rose deserves to be in teh Hall of Fame for his accomplishments on teh field. Under the current agreement, he will certainly be inducted posthumously. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the ban being lifted if Rose expresses public contrition and demonstrates that he understands why and how his behavior was wrong. Barring that, he got and gets exactly what he agreed to. Perhaps he can continue to console himself with appearances on teh Home Shopping Network where he can hawk memorabilia to ardent fans who forgive everything providing one is a big enough star.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

34

TOP THREE THINGS PETE COULD DO TO GET RE-INSTATED

  1. Admit it.
  2. Get a real hair cut.
  3. Fake his own death.
    :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:
35

Krispy and Satan are doing such a good job with this, I almost feel like I’m interrupting. But permit to do it anyway.

If thou art involved in Major League Baseball, thou shalt not bet on it. How clearcut does the rule have to be?

Let’s set up a hypothetical. Suppose Rose bet on his own team. Suppose he only bet on them to win. What could be the harm in it?

Well, what happens on the days he doesn’t bet? The bookies call one another, odds are adjusted up and down. The inside talk among the big money is that the manager doesn’t even think his own team can win.

Soon, the entire gambling empire (legal and otherwise) is watching to see how Rose is betting. And they figure he’s an insider, and must know about other teams.

So Pete Rose, whether he wanted to or not, may have been the biggest oddsmaker in the history of sports gambling.

I saw him play. He was one hell of a player. But until he takes responsibility for his actions, I’m in no hurry to see him make a comeback.

And for the reocrd, I’m in no hurry to see Steve Howe or Mike Tyson or O.J. Simpson make a comeback, either.

36

I don’t believe that a baseball player has to take an oath or anything. He shouldn’t have been barred in the first place.But he should have been SEVERLY disaplined. Something more than money. they get paid so much that it doesn’t bother them.

37

Krispy, sorry for the delayed response. I don’t think you got the gist of my post. I am not an advocate one way or the other on Rose. I just don’t think anyone in the general public is in a position to judge.

Just as much as you cannot prove harm was not done to the game, those that want him banned cannot prove the game was harmed.

This is all for the simple reason the full extent of his transgressions were never made public.

Until this occurs, the argument on both sides will be - as yours most certainly is - purely emotional.

38

First of all, not necessarily, especially in the Constitutional Republic we live in.

Second of all, MLB is NOT a government. It is a league with it’s own rules. Those rules may have changed - you think the owners could have sacked Mountain Keensaw Landis like they did that other commissioner? - but ultimately, it’s their rules.

Baseball feels that the emotions of Rose fans is not enough to outweigh the evidence that thay have against him. With baseball revenue and fan support at it’s highest, there is no reason to cave in even if they wanted to.

**

I guarantee that if the Red Sox had won the '75 series, and it was shown that Rose was responsible in some way, and some kid said, “Say it ain’t so, Pete” and Rose couldn’t reply (he would lie, as he is proven to do, but mind that not), it would have effected baseball, don’t you think?

**

Please see my drunk driving analogy. I think it’s a fair one.

**

It can be argues that what Rose did was not as bad as what Jackson and his cohorts did. And maybe one day, Rose will own up to what he did, and he will be given a “lesser” sentance, per se. But until then, I see no reason why, as long as he is alive, that he should be treated any differently.

**

Irrelevant. If you do not like what baseball is doing, don’t support them. They are free to make mistakes and they have paid for them. Baseball got lucky that right after the strike - when apathy was at its most intense for the sport - the home run derby in the NL and the prominence of the Yankees (a historical franchise in a media capital with individuals who are hard to hate on the team).

In fact, one could make a parable that the SAME things (Yankees, home runs) saved baseball back then. But that’s something for a real baseball historian to bring up.

As for what you said about Bench, maybe they are not friends per se, but the fact is that he is the benchmark (pun unintentional) of how most within the game think.

**

I’m saying that everyone knows that all came about because of Ma$tercard…

Yer pal,
Satan

39

Hello all you baseball fans.

If baseball backs off from its stand and allows Pete Rose back in, knowing that he still gambles (even Pete “I’m completely innocent and ignore all that silly evidence” Rose admits to that), still associates with seedy characters, and still won’t admit to any wrongdoing, then the message will be clear: if the fans love you, you do not have to abide by baseball’s rules.

Why not let Cal Ripken and Ken Griffey have four strikes per at-bat?

I have a great deal of respect for Bud Selig now after watching his handling of the Rocker situation. It seems harsh to some people but to me it makes it clear that baseball will not tolerate immature outbursts that tarnish the game’s image. I applaud him for that. I hope he stands firm on the Rose case as well. Rose is as guilty of gambling on baseball as O.J. Simpson was of killing his ex-wife.

40

Looking at it from a legalistic point of view, if the law (or the rules of the game) is to be respected, it must be observed by all people subject to it and enforcers of the law must enforce it without favoritism. If this is not done, the law is not the law, it’s just a code that is applied capriciously.

Pete Rose should not receive favoritism. The rules of the game, which Rose agreed to abide by when he signed his contract and received large sums of money in payment for doing so, say that YOU DO NOT BET ON BASEBALL. This is one of the very basic rules of conduct for people involved with the game. A sign explaining this is posted in every clubhouse. Pete Rose broke this basic rule and was justly punished.

As far as Rose’s guilt, I believe the Sports Illustrated articles. Don’t bother arguing it. He’s guilty.