MLB commissioner Selig appears to be "considering" reinstatement for Pete Rose

[Skyhi]

ABSOLUTELY! You as a player are gambling your livelyhood! You are betting that you can perform to a certain degree to get extra income. If you spend the money before you get it, what do you call that? If you don't get it because (insert reason here) and can't play again you are in a deep-ass hole! That can cause just as much pressure to win at all costs as a bet to win the game.

See ya
Tony

I can't believe you're comparing compulsive gambling to performance bonuses...bonuses can be a motivator while compulsive gambling is a debilitating disease that changes the gambler's brain chemistry.

Compulsive gambling - MayoClinic.com

 

[Skyhi]

A lawyer or judge convicted of a felony can NEVER be a lawyer (represent a client) or a judge again. They are disbarred almost every time. A professional sports figure who is convicted of a felony is allowed to play the day after they get out of prison. Politicians are allowed to continue to be politicians only if the people vote them back in to office.

That's not true. There are plenty of ex-drug dealers and ex-wife beaters who are members of the bar in good standing. They are suspended, allowed to rehabilitate themselves, and then reinstated. Do you want to know what (occasionally) leads to permanent disbarment? Compulsive gambling, because it puts clients' $$$ at risk and has the potential to undermine the integrity of the entire profession....just like it does in professional sports.

 

[TNGTony]

Make a bet on baseball=compulsive gambling.... got it.

http://www.reference.com/browse/disbarred
In addition, any lawyer who is convicted of a felony is automatically disbarred in most jurisdictions.

http://www.akronbar.org/article.asp?ID=1166
http://www.evilesq.com/mario-a-bautista-former-esquire-disbarred-finally/
I could flood the thread with several thousand links like these with layers disbarred for non-gambling or fraud felonies. But it wouldn't sway anyone. It just makes my point anyway. But we really digress.

 

[Ramy]

That's like saying a player who only juiced in the offseason is OK. It's the principle of the matter. Once you start allowing exceptions like that you'll have the beer leaguers in the bullpen placing bets on the justification that they don't usually play. Then it'll be the bench guys, starters on their off days, guys on the DL, etc. It's just a can of worms you don't want to open.

No it isn't. Nothing like it. Stop comparing things like that which have nothing in common.

 

[Ramy]

HOW do you know that sooner or later, they would NOT bet against their team?!! I know the question coming back, "you can't be sure they WILL bet against their own team....you are looking at hypotheticals...??!!" Well you know what? That is a chance NOT worth risking.....

So are you.

 

[Ramy]

I do not understand how playing to win will affect your judgement on your normal course of action which would be PLAYING TO WIN.

Yes, I play and coach softball and play to win. I can never say I played to lose.

 

[Ramy]

Hey Guy's, the HOF is for what players did while they were ON the field playing .....
On his stats he put up on the field there is NO DOUBT that he belongs IN the HOF.

Was he caught gambling while playing ? NO.

This is REALLY simple, but him in as a player.

No one ever said he was a HOF manager.

The gambling issues have nothing to do with his playing time.

His time in prison was NOT because of gambling either.

Exactly!!!! I do think he should never be let back in as a manager/coach or anything else other than an ambassador for the game.

 

[Ramy]

I would have no problem with his lifetime ban if ALL the rules applied to EVERYONE *EVERY* time. If the MLB were consistent and applied the rules to everyone and banned everyone who broke every rule then I wouldn't have a beef. I find Rose's lifetime ban to be inherently unfair and targeted to destroy one man and just the one man.

See ya
Tony

Yes. If Selig would quit changing the rules then I would have been fine with his ban still. Selig changed the rule that would have allowed Pete to have been on the ballot for the HOF when he came eligible. Being banned for life for playing was not banned from being on the HOF ballot.

 

[SandraC]

Questions

OK I don't remember Pete Rose as a player, and I don't remember much about his managing and gambling at the time, either. Almost nothing.

I do know he was one of my dad's favorites, even though my dad was a New York fan all the way. My dad loved guys who hustle. But I honestly don't remember my dad's opinion of whether he thought Rose should be banned or reinstated or what.

So please help me here...

Who did Rose place his bets with...were they placed in Las Vegas, or with bookies?

Didn't he lie about gambling for quite a while, even though there was some long report that said he gambled? I mean like for years?

Didn't he eventually admit to gambling in his own book, where he made a profit from admitting it?

Is it possible he never really gambled on baseball, but admitted it just to sell books? Ironically could he have done that because he needed money because he gambled it away on other sports?

Has Rose ever admitted to having a gambling problem?


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

Total speculation, and as stated above, NO PROOF.

Nope. In fact Pete didn't stop gambling after getting professional help to stop . From a time mag interview
"I still gamble, but it's all legal." Rose is a sick man. A few years back he was deep in debt from his sickness. He also went to jail for not reporting money he made at autograph shows.

I'm not so easy to fool . I believe MLB had tons more on him but told him to take the lifelong suspension and we won't let anymore of the investagation get out. I also don't believe he bet on his team to win either like he said. I believe he also bet on them to lose.

 

[Ramy]

I believe he also bet on them to lose.

I would like to see the evidence one day if that is true. I know you say you believe that. I don't though.

 

[televisionarchives]

I would like to see the evidence one day if that is true. I know you say you believe that. I don't though.

He was gambling to make money . So that would prove it. If he knew the other team was better I'm sure he went with them. I have a real hard time believing a man who lied about it for years but only told part of the truth to promote his book.

 

[Ramy]

He was gambling to make money . So that would prove it. If he knew the other team was better I'm sure he went with them. I have a real hard time believing a man who lied about it for years but only told part of the truth to promote his book.

No it doesn't prove it. I was fine with what you said before, but now you are trying to make it fact instead of your opinion and you simply can't.

 

[Will94]

There is no doubt in my mind that Rose was (is?) a gambling addict. As I remember he chose a lifetime ban in order to keep Bart Giamatti from releasing the full results of the investigation.

I think that he should be eligible for the HOF because of what he accomplished as a player. In no way do I condone his gambling, but it was done as a manager. I don't think that it should affect his eligibility for the HOF.

The fact of the matter is that he had no physical gifts (power, speed, etc) and still managed to get 4,256 hits because he had an obsession with being the best player in baseball.

 

[televisionarchives]

No it doesn't prove it. I was fine with what you said before, but now you are trying to make it fact instead of your opinion and you simply can't.

Only one person had lied about the whole thing, Pete Rose. Everyone else told the truth. If you want to say it doesn't prove it then fine but I won't believe that Rose just started to gamble when he became Manager. And he caused more damage as Manager of the team. He had control over the whole team . If he did gamble as a player he ( I believe he did) he only could control what he did while playing, as Manager he could change the whole outcome of a game.

 

[Skyhi]

Make a bet on baseball=compulsive gambling.... got it.

No, but I don't think there's any doubt that Pete Rose is a compulsive gambler. I'd be willing to bet (bad pun) that any pro-athlete who is betting on his sport is a compulsive gambler. You have to be sick in the head to take that kind of risk.

http://www.reference.com/browse/disbarred
In addition, any lawyer who is convicted of a felony is automatically disbarred in most jurisdictions.

Akron Bar Association | Supreme Court Decision -combined disciplinary films
EvilEsq Mario Bautista, CA Lawyer *** DISBARRED ***
I could flood the thread with several thousand links like these with layers disbarred for non-gambling or fraud felonies. But it wouldn't sway anyone. It just makes my point anyway. But we really digress.

We're straying away from the original topic, but what you're saying is simply false no matter what reference.com says. Do lawyers get permanently disbarred? Yes. Is being convicted of a felony an automatic permanent disbarment? Absolutely not. I am a member of the Ohio bar and have been taught all about attorney discipline. Never was I told that a felony = automatic disbarment. Anectodely, a interned with an ex-prosecutor who took bribes, was convicted of a felony, served time, and had his license re-instated. I took a continuing legal education seminar in ethics from another ex-prosecutor who stole cocaine from the evidence lockers....felony, jail, suspension, re-instatement.

 

[SideshowBob]

Yes. If Selig would quit changing the rules then I would have been fine with his ban still. Selig changed the rule that would have allowed Pete to have been on the ballot for the HOF when he came eligible. Being banned for life for playing was not banned from being on the HOF ballot.

Um, wrong. Selig has absolutely nothing to do with the HOF ineligibility. The HOF is a private organization that sets its own rules independent of MLB. Selig has no authority over them.

The HOF did decide to add a rule that ppeople who are permanently ineligible from MLB would also be ineligible for HOF election. And they did add that rule after Rose's banning, so you have a slight point. But it wasn't Selig doing do (nor could he reverse that rule even if he wanted to). That said, the rule was merely an explicitly confirmation of a long held tradition -- the folks involved in the Black Sox Scandle were never made eligible for HOF election either because it was essentially understood that banned players couldn't be elected; this rule merely that official.

 

[anders5189]

But your last statement tells me he got a lifetime ban NOT for gambling, but for defending himself until the bitter end?

Lying for 20 years is not exactly defending yourself.

 

[anders5189]

Um, wrong. Selig has absolutely nothing to do with the HOF ineligibility. The HOF is a private organization that sets its own rules independent of MLB. Selig has no authority over them.

The HOF did decide to add a rule that ppeople who are permanently ineligible from MLB would also be ineligible for HOF election. And they did add that rule after Rose's banning, so you have a slight point. But it wasn't Selig doing do (nor could he reverse that rule even if he wanted to). That said, the rule was merely an explicitly confirmation of a long held tradition -- the folks involved in the Black Sox Scandle were never made eligible for HOF election either because it was essentially understood that banned players couldn't be elected; this rule merely that official.

As I said earlier, regardless of whether Rose is eliglible or not he needs 75% of the voters to vote him in. It will NEVER happen. His candidacy would get the same strong opinions that we've seen in this thread.

I don't know how as a practical matter you can just "vote him in as a player. " There's only one Pete Rose. Could you just vote Cal Ripken in as a shortstop? No. For better or worse the good stuff that Rose did on the field is gone forever. People just need to accept that and move on. And if they don't like it then they have but one man to thank, Peter Edward Rose.

 

[Will94]

I would like to see the evidence one day if that is true.

I don't know that it's relevant. If the Reds were playing Tuesday and Wednesday and he put money on the Tuesday game, then he might be willing to burn his bullpen despite being down big and put his team at a disadvantage for Wednesday. It's not exactly throwing a game, but the effect would be similar.

I just don't think that any of it matters. He's been shown to be a liar, gambler, and womanizer. However, as a player, he was Charlie Hustle. He had 4,256, and he should be in the HOF.