Whichever side you're on of the Hall of Fame Steroids Debate ...

[MurphDogg]

Rose never threw a game and although what he did was wrong, it not cost him what he earned as a player.

I can't give him any credit for this. If you are betting on some of your games but not others it can affect your bullpen usage, use of part time players and so forth.

[Moose Milligan]

Right. He not only broke the #1 rule, but consistently lied about it and only changed his tune when he could make a buck off the story. It'll be a sad day if they put Rose in while guys like Marvin Miller and Buck O'Neil are out.

The #1 rule, according to who? Oh, the guy who became Commissioner to clean up the Black Sox scandal and was against integrating the game, helping keep blacks from playing for another 25+ years or so? It's no coincidence that he died in 1946 and Jackie started playing in 1947. But oohhhh no!! Gambling, gambling, gambling! Worst sin ever!

What's worse, Rose gambling on baseball or every single MLB owner banding together in the mid 80's and refusing to participate in Free Agency in order to keep salaries down? You can't honestly tell me that what Rose did is worse than every Major League team agreeing with each other NOT to make their teams better. How is that not a worse slight on the integrity of the game than anything that Rose did? How is keeping blacks out of baseball worse? Yet the Hall is filled with bigots and other unsavory characters, which I assume is somewhat okay because they didn't gamble on the game.

There's a ton of different things that you could actually do during a baseball game that are way worse. Juan Marichal going insane over John Roseboro with a bat immediately comes to mind. Sliding with spikes high. You can't tell me that those things aren't worse than what Rose did.

I find it hilarious that you chastise MLB because they're always stuck in their ways and refuse to look for ways to make the game better, yet you cling to "The #1 Rule," a rule so outdated in an age where a ballplayers single season salary is more money than any of us will ever see in a lifetime. That rule was put in place specifically due to what the Black Sox did, which was to intentionally lose the World Series and get paid to do so, which was possible then only because their salaries were so pathetic in the first place and they were so underpaid by Cominsky that the idea seemed appealing. No one has ever suggested Rose intentionally threw a game or bet on his team to lose, it's documented. And I know you'll say "Well, how are you going to believe Rose, the pathological liar?" which is a predictable and lazy argument to make.

We KNOW that Rose bet on his team to win while he was the manager of the Cincinnati Reds. That's it. That's all he did. The Dowd report says so.

So is "gambling" really baseballs cardinal sin? Suppose Adam Jones bets Nick Markakis 10 bucks that he can't get a hit off Mariano Rivera in the 9th inning of the game they're playing. Is that so awful? According to you, that's gambling and Adam Jones and Nick Markakis should be banned for baseball for life...or serve some sort of suspension similar to what Mantle and Mays did when they were greeting people at casinos. What about ballplayers that play fantasy baseball, because that is a form of gambling?

But what if Jones bet Nick 100 bucks? 200? 5,000? 20,000? What if the pool in the Orioles clubhouse for the guys that play fantasy baseball is a few thousand dollars? All of a sudden now some serious cash is being thrown around and the stakes are a bit higher. Now all of a sudden "gambling" seems to be a problem.

What we KNOW is that Rose never threw a baseball game. He never bet on his team to lose. He never intentionally held the Reds back from winning ballgames in order to win bets.

But, he broke the CARDINAL SIN OF BASEBALL!! *eyeroll*

EDIT: And I'm sorry, but if anyone wants to show their kid how to play baseball the "right way" look no further than Pete Rose.

And I agree, it's a travashamockery that O'Neil and Miller aren't in the Hall. Whether who gets in first among the three isn't an issue, IMO.

[DrungoHazewood]

The #1 rule, according to who? Oh, the guy who became Commissioner to clean up the Black Sox scandal and was against integrating the game, helping keep blacks from playing for another 25+ years or so? It's no coincidence that he died in 1946 and Jackie started playing in 1947. But oohhhh no!! Gambling, gambling, gambling! Worst sin ever!

What's worse, Rose gambling on baseball or every single MLB owner banding together in the mid 80's and refusing to participate in Free Agency in order to keep salaries down? You can't honestly tell me that what Rose did is worse than every Major League team agreeing with each other NOT to make their teams better. How is that not a worse slight on the integrity of the game than anything that Rose did? How is keeping blacks out of baseball worse? Yet the Hall is filled with bigots and other unsavory characters, which I assume is somewhat okay because they didn't gamble on the game.

There's a ton of different things that you could actually do during a baseball game that are way worse. Juan Marichal going insane over John Roseboro with a bat immediately comes to mind. Sliding with spikes high. You can't tell me that those things aren't worse than what Rose did.

I find it hilarious that you chastise MLB because they're always stuck in their ways and refuse to look for ways to make the game better, yet you cling to "The #1 Rule," a rule so outdated in an age where a ballplayers single season salary is more money than any of us will ever see in a lifetime. That rule was put in place specifically due to what the Black Sox did, which was to intentionally lose the World Series and get paid to do so, which was possible then only because their salaries were so pathetic in the first place and they were so underpaid by Cominsky that the idea seemed appealing. No one has ever suggested Rose intentionally threw a game or bet on his team to lose, it's documented. And I know you'll say "Well, how are you going to believe Rose, the pathological liar?" which is a predictable and lazy argument to make.

We KNOW that Rose bet on his team to win while he was the manager of the Cincinnati Reds. That's it. That's all he did. The Dowd report says so.

So is "gambling" really baseballs cardinal sin? Suppose Adam Jones bets Nick Markakis 10 bucks that he can't get a hit off Mariano Rivera in the 9th inning of the game they're playing. Is that so awful? According to you, that's gambling and Adam Jones and Nick Markakis should be banned for baseball for life...or serve some sort of suspension similar to what Mantle and Mays did when they were greeting people at casinos. What about ballplayers that play fantasy baseball, because that is a form of gambling?

But what if Jones bet Nick 100 bucks? 200? 5,000? 20,000? What if the pool in the Orioles clubhouse for the guys that play fantasy baseball is a few thousand dollars? All of a sudden now some serious cash is being thrown around and the stakes are a bit higher. Now all of a sudden "gambling" seems to be a problem.

What we KNOW is that Rose never threw a baseball game. He never bet on his team to lose. He never intentionally held the Reds back from winning ballgames in order to win bets.

But, he broke the CARDINAL SIN OF BASEBALL!! *eyeroll*

EDIT: And I'm sorry, but if anyone wants to show their kid how to play baseball the "right way" look no further than Pete Rose.

And I agree, it's a travashamockery that O'Neil and Miller aren't in the Hall. Whether who gets in first among the three isn't an issue, IMO.

I believe that it is still valid to have a very strict, even draconian, rule preventing gambling on sports your participate in. I think the presence of widespread betting in other countries shows that it's not necessarily something that will lead to the downfall of a sport or league, but you still need to be very, very careful lest your sport becomes like boxing or wrestling. Boxing went from one of the most popular sports in the US and the world to a ridiculous sideshow at least in part because nobody believes the matches are on the up-and-up.

It's certainly debatable whether or not gambling is the worst of many sins in sport. I won't argue if you think it's not. I think I'd argue that one of the worst things they've done is take hundreds of thousands of minor league games and made them competitively meaningless - essentially selling out wins and losses for generations in service of the parent organization.

And while I think there's a certain romantic notion about Rose's way of playing the game, there's also a bit of a facade there, too. He became "that guy" who sprinted to first base on every walk, and sportwriters loved and fawned over that, to the point where 125% hustle on every play became the standard by which everyone was judged, even if it's not necessarily the smartest thing to do. Everyone looks at Rose destroying Ray Fosse in the All Star game as the greatest thing ever, as he never gave an inch for any reason, ever. Well, the other side of the coin is he seriously damaged guy's career in a meaningless exhibition for no reason beyond he wanted to score a run. And his drive led the Reds to keep him on as a player for years after he was any good, obviously and overtly valuing personal records over team performance. We complain incessantly about guys like Melvin Mora playing out the string, or Roberts refusing to just give up, begging them to retire, while Rose spent the last 894 games (seven years and 884 hits) of his career as a sub-replacement player.

[osfan83]

In proffessional sports, the number one rule has to be no gambling. Once there is a question as to whether a game is fixed or not, there is no longer a reason to follow the sport. The beauty of sports is that anything can happen, you don't know the outcome before hand. Once you remove that it becomes a scripted show or movie.

[Moose Milligan]

I believe that it is still valid to have a very strict, even draconian, rule preventing gambling on sports your participate in. I think the presence of widespread betting in other countries shows that it's not necessarily something that will lead to the downfall of a sport or league, but you still need to be very, very careful lest your sport becomes like boxing or wrestling. Boxing went from one of the most popular sports in the US and the world to a ridiculous sideshow at least in part because nobody believes the matches are on the up-and-up.

It's certainly debatable whether or not gambling is the worst of many sins in sport. I won't argue if you think it's not. I think I'd argue that one of the worst things they've done is take hundreds of thousands of minor league games and made them competitively meaningless - essentially selling out wins and losses for generations in service of the parent organization.

And while I think there's a certain romantic notion about Rose's way of playing the game, there's also a bit of a facade there, too. He became "that guy" who sprinted to first base on every walk, and sportwriters loved and fawned over that, to the point where 125% hustle on every play became the standard by which everyone was judged, even if it's not necessarily the smartest thing to do. Everyone looks at Rose destroying Ray Fosse in the All Star game as the greatest thing ever, as he never gave an inch for any reason, ever. Well, the other side of the coin is he seriously damaged guy's career in a meaningless exhibition for no reason beyond he wanted to score a run. And his drive led the Reds to keep him on as a player for years after he was any good, obviously and overtly valuing personal records over team performance. We complain incessantly about guys like Melvin Mora playing out the string, or Roberts refusing to just give up, begging them to retire, while Rose spent the last 894 games (seven years and 884 hits) of his career as a sub-replacement player.

I understand where you're coming from and agree to a certain extent. I believe there should be rules on gambling as well...however, I think the punishments should fit the crimes.

I don't think what Rose did was neaaaarly as bad as what the Black Sox did, keeping blacks out of the game and owner collusion. To me, they're not even in the same realm. As I said in my previous post all that we know as fact due to the Dowd report is that he bet on his teams to win. Sure, he could have thrown games as a manager, but that wasn't proven...that's just a hypothetical.

I hear you on him sticking around too long and if that's part of your grudge against him, that's fine. I understand that line of thinking, too. But even in 1985 he still got on base at a .395 clip (86 walks vs 35 strikeouts). 1984, he got on base at a .359 clip. I don't think it's 100% right to slam his later years and write him off as a below replacement level player. Clearly, he brought some value to the table. Now I'm not sure what good he was as a defender and his power numbers near the end completely sucked but that's to be expected from a guy who never really hit for a ton of power in the first place.

[radar303]

All respect to a poster w/almost 30,000 posts, but Dowd has said on many occasions that it is very probable that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds. Due to time constraints of the reports he could not w/ absolute certainty make that statement. And to denigrate Dowd's(as compared to Rose's) word is NOT logical. He was hired to do a job/investigation. His reputation was/is

beyond reproach. Pete was all about "fake" hustle, a shameless self-promoter. He can not be trusted(proven) that anything he says has any merit or can be believed. It has also been said that Rose did not bet ON the Reds when Soto or Gullickson was pitching.... so does that give any clues???

He did it and by the rules of what is, he is banned. Change the rules going forward... but he is guilty of violating what Landis wanted stopped.

[Tony-OH]

I can't give him any credit for this. If you are betting on some of your games but not others it can affect your bullpen usage, use of part time players and so forth.

Ok, I can see where you could come up with that and that is of course a valid reason and why it's illegal to bet on baseball. Saying that, I don't think anyone has ever shown a thread of evidence where Rose did something to that effect. I just think as a player, he was clearly HoF caliber and deserves to be in regardless of what he did later as a manager.

[Moose Milligan]

All respect to a poster w/almost 30,000 posts, but Dowd has said on many occasions that it is very probable that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds. Due to time constraints of the reports he could not w/ absolute certainty make that statement. And to denigrate Dowd's(as compared to Rose's) word is NOT logical. He was hired to do a job/investigation. His reputation was/is

beyond reproach. Pete was all about "fake" hustle, a shameless self-promoter. He can not be trusted(proven) that anything he says has any merit or can be believed. It has also been said that Rose did not bet ON the Reds when Soto or Gullickson was pitching.... so does that give any clues???

He did it and by the rules of what is, he is banned. Change the rules going forward... but he is guilty of violating what Landis wanted stopped.

Yeah, welp, that's Dowd's problem, isn't it? "Probable" doesn't really hold up in court.

[Big Al]

I had always heard there was more information in the Dowd report and it was agreed to be kept under wraps if Rose agreed to his banishment from baseball. I have also heard that when Rose agreed to a lifetime banishment, that did not include the HOF and that the rule was later changed by Selig to include HOF exclusion as part of a lifetime banishment from baseball.

[Tony-OH]

All respect to a poster w/almost 30,000 posts, but Dowd has said on many occasions that it is very probable that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds. Due to time constraints of the reports he could not w/ absolute certainty make that statement. And to denigrate Dowd's(as compared to Rose's) word is NOT logical. He was hired to do a job/investigation. His reputation was/is

beyond reproach. Pete was all about "fake" hustle, a shameless self-promoter. He can not be trusted(proven) that anything he says has any merit or can be believed. It has also been said that Rose did not bet ON the Reds when Soto or Gullickson was pitching.... so does that give any clues???

He did it and by the rules of what is, he is banned. Change the rules going forward... but he is guilty of violating what Landis wanted stopped.

You bring up some very good points, and I think without a doubt Rose deserved to be punished for what he did, but I'm not sure keeping him out of the HoF for his playing days is the right move. I'm fine if he's never allowed another job with baseball, and I'm fine with him not getting into the hall for a significant amount of time, but I think at some point he should be let back in. Rose might not be the best human being in the world, and quite honestly every time I hear him talk he gives me a bad feeling, but he's the all-time hit leader and he was an All-star 17 times. He belongs in the Hall of Fame for that in my opinion.

[Tony-OH]

Have you read this?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Baseball-Through-America/dp/0060854049/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357311294&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=posanski

No, but I definitely need to. Posnanski is a fantastic writer and I'm sure it would be a great read. Now if I only had time to read.

[DrungoHazewood]

I had always heard there was more information in the Dowd report and it was agreed to be kept under wraps if Rose agreed to his banishment from baseball. I have also heard that when Rose agreed to a lifetime banishment, that did not include the HOF and that the rule was later changed by Selig to include HOF exclusion as part of a lifetime banishment from baseball.

That was the Hall's call. For all I know they could have had some under-the-radar discussions with Bud, but the Hall isn't officially affiliated with MLB. They make their own rules.

[osfan83]

You bring up some very good points, and I think without a doubt Rose deserved to be punished for what he did, but I'm not sure keeping him out of the HoF for his playing days is the right move. I'm fine if he's never allowed another job with baseball, and I'm fine with him not getting into the hall for a significant amount of time, but I think at some point he should be let back in. Rose might not be the best human being in the world, and quite honestly every time I hear him talk he gives me a bad feeling, but he's the all-time hit leader and he was an All-star 17 times. He belongs in the Hall of Fame for that in my opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, Rose's acheivements can be highlighted in the hall...but as a player he should be left out. Taking steriods, beating your wife, robbing banks are all worse than gambling, but only gambling puts into question the integrity of each individual game.

[Number5]

The big issue for me is the difference between how a player found to be involved in gambling and an umpire found to be involved in gambling are treated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Garcia

"Controversies

In 1996, Garcia made a controversial call during Game 1 of the American League Championship Series between the Baltimore Orioles and the Yankees; he was umpiring in right field. In the 8th inning, the Yankees tied the game 4-4 when Derek Jeter hit a fly ball to right field that 12-year-old fan Jeffrey Maier pulled into the stands after reaching over the right field wall. Garcia ruled it a home run, but after seeing a replay admitted that he had made a mistake after the game; the Yankees won the game in 11 innings and would go on to win the series.[7][8]

Another call by Garcia that was questioned by some media members came in Game 1 of the 1998 World Series.[9][10] Padres pitcher Mark Langston appeared to have struck out Tino Martinez on a 2–2 pitch with the bases loaded and two outs in the 7th inning with the game tied at 5-5. Garcia, however, called the pitch a ball, and Martinez hit Langston's next pitch for a grand slam.[9]

Garcia took part in the 1999 Major League Umpires Association mass resignation which was engineered by Richie Phillips, the union's executive director. When the strategy backfired, Garcia lost his job because his resignation was one of the 22 accepted by Major League Baseball. After working as a consultant for the baseball commissioner's office, he was hired as a MLB umpire supervisor in 2002.[11] On March 8 of that year, the Daily News (New York City) disclosed that in 1989 he and National League umpire Frank Pulli had associated with Florida-based bookmakers who were known drug dealers. Three days later on March 11, the Boston Herald reported that, according to information collected from federal wiretaps, both umpires had problems paying off their gambling debts. The punishment MLB had applied to Garcia and Pulli at the time was only two years' probation.[12] Garcia, along with fellow supervisors Marty Springstead and Jim McKean, were ousted on March 6, 2010 as a result of a 2009 postseason which was plagued by various high-profile questionable calls that drew a firestorm of criticism from fans and the media.[13]"

An umpire has a greater chance to influence the outcome of a game than a player. When an umpire is found - through a federal investigation including wiretaps - to have serious gambling debts and is known to have had trouble repaying them, how can baseball justify giving him a slap on the wrist, while banning players for life? I can't put into words how angry I was when this came out in 2002, knowing that Garcia should have been fired in 1989 and never would have been the right field umpire that had a clear view of a fan interference, yet did not make the call. No one can tell me that was an honest mistake. No one. For that guy to later be made a supervisor of umpires compounds that travesty even further.

Sorry, rant over.

[radar303]

It is Rose's problem, he can't get in. Dowd was just following up with interested people. The investigation was ended, he has said that evidence has him convinced(he is respected) tha

Rose bet against the Reds... but the money he was being paid by MLB for the investigation was over, so in the report he stated that evidence does not state that Rose bet against the Reds

And if we were to speculate(a little) does Pete take the lifetime ban(he did) if he was just exuberant for HIS team and just bet on them to win??. They had him dead to rights. And now Giamatti is dead, we only have Pete's side of the story(about reinstatment).... and he is proven liar.

As a tragic figure Rose does not hold water, has to be the most insincere ballplayer ever.