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

[Paul Wozniak]

No there isn't. The integrity of the game is in question. Do you really believe he never bet against his own team?

No I don't. Was there ever any proof that he did?

Bill, all you got is HIS word. He has lied once or twice about this.....It comes down to what you love more - the game, or Pete Rose. I love the game, and what he did sickens me, as well as the "juicers". This is coming from a guy who modeled his game after Rose. I loved the guy, but he broke my heart.

 

[Mrs-MSmith198025]

Bill, all you got is HIS word. He has lied once or twice about this.....It comes down to what you love more - the game, or Pete Rose. I love the game, and what he did sickens me, as well as the "juicers". This is coming from a guy who modeled his game after Rose. I loved the guy, but he broke my heart.

I agree, and his word means nothing to me. IMO, if he lied about one thing he wouldn't hesistate to lie about another. He has no one to blame, for the situation he's ended up in, but himself.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Bill, all you got is HIS word. He has lied once or twice about this.....It comes down to what you love more - the game, or Pete Rose. I love the game, and what he did sickens me, as well as the "juicers". This is coming from a guy who modeled his game after Rose. I loved the guy, but he broke my heart.

The Dowd report determined that he did not bet against the Reds. The Dowd report also determined that overall he lost money and was a very scattered bettor. His betting pattern seemed to portray him as someone with a gambling addiction, just in it for the action. There was never any evidence introduced that he did things to throw games or that any "inside info" he may have had as a MLB manager helped him in any way.

I believe his 20 year "sentence" is punishment enough for what he did, and as a previous poster said, as long as he is not in any type of active position where he can dictate game events he should be reinstated. (Old timer's games, all-star functions, etc.).

 

[Ramy]

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.

Yes you are technically right about the Commissioner not having the power but he was the one that lobbied them to do it while he was assistant commissioner under Vincent. If it wasn't for him that rule would have never came up.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

The Dowd report determined that he did not bet against the Reds. The Dowd report also determined that overall he lost money and was a very scattered bettor. His betting pattern seemed to portray him as someone with a gambling addiction, just in it for the action. There was never any evidence introduced that he did things to throw games or that any "inside info" he may have had as a MLB manager helped him in any way.

I believe his 20 year "sentence" is punishment enough for what he did, and as a previous poster said, as long as he is not in any type of active position where he can dictate game events he should be reinstated. (Old timer's games, all-star functions, etc.).

No, it's not. He knew what was at stake he placed the bets. The integrity of the game comes first. We let him get away with it, then comes the next guy.

 

[anders5189]

No, it's not. He knew what was at stake he placed the bets. The integrity of the game comes first. We let him get away with it, then comes the next guy.

Well said. What message did it send to other players when MLB turned a blind eye to Jose Canseco juicing in the late 80's? Maybe if they had made an example out of him back then we wouldn't have seen the nonsense that followed.

 

[Mrs-MSmith198025]

Well said. What message did it send to other players when MLB turned a blind eye to Jose Canseco juicing in the late 80's? Maybe if they had made an example out of him back then we wouldn't have seen the nonsense that followed.

I agree.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

At least afew people here care about "the game".

 

[cosmo_kramer]

No, it's not. He knew what was at stake he placed the bets. The integrity of the game comes first. We let him get away with it, then comes the next guy.

Thanks for that, but that's my opinion, that's why I prefaced my response with "I believe". Again, in my opinion, there is no clear-cut answer to this issue.

It's also my contention that he didn't "get away with it". A 20-year ban is pretty significant. If he was lobbying to get back into managing, front office, ownership, etc. I would agree to not lift the ban. What would it hurt to allow appearances to event like Old Timer's day, all-star festivities, etc.??

 

[Paul Wozniak]

He can keep signing autographs.

 

[meStevo]

In my opinion, between this lingering issue and all the steroid stuff, the integrity of the game doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to lose. Get out from under this, let it be the big sensationalized story and let it go away.

 

[Will94]

We let him get away with it, then comes the next guy.

He has had a 20 year ban. Wouldn't that be a deterrent to the "next guy?!?" It's not terribly relevant anyway as the Internet would make it virtually impossible to catch the next guy.

His banishment has led to some ridiculous situations. The Reds can't retire #14, but, until recently, played in a stadium on a street named after him. Let the Reds retire #14. They aren't going to ever let anyone wear it, so why not retire it?

I am not saying that Rose is a good guy or that he didn't do bad things. I just believe that the sole criteria for making the Hall of Fame should be what a man does as a ballplayer.

As it is now, MLB is essentially pretending that its all-time hits leader never existed, and that is absurd.

 

[anders5189]

As it is now, MLB is essentially pretending that its all-time hits leader never existed, and that is absurd.

Hopefully they will pretend that the all time HR leader never existed either.

 

[ChrisK114]

Okay here is my take. While I agree that what Pete Rose did was wrong, I also believe in second chances. Steroid users get second, third, and sometimes fourth chances. Pete Rose screwed up when he lied about betting on baseball. If he had admitted it to begin with, he may have gotten a second chance. He has since done so. He bet that his team would win. If they can prove he bet on them to lose, then I think he should be banned for life, because there is no telling what history he may have altered. If, and only if, Pete Rose can prove he no longer gambles, I think he should get another chance. The first time he buys a lotto ticket though, he outta here.

 

[stmcld]

I guess the issue I have with Pete Rose is kind of simple. I, for years, defended him and honestly thought the gambling wasn't as bad as MLB let on. I really thought it was more a personal thing between the two commissioners and Pete. However, a few years ago Pete basically admitted he lied and it was all true. Since that point I frankly don't care if he is ever allowed back into baseball. I guess the one caveat is if they allow positive drug tested players to continue in baseball, I think Pete should be allowed back into the game. So, I guess I am ambivalent. I just see how his offense is any worse than Steve Sax or other druggies.

 

[Mrs-MSmith198025]

I guess the issue I have with Pete Rose is kind of simple. I, for years, defended him and honestly thought the gambling wasn't as bad as MLB let on. I really thought it was more a personal thing between the two commissioners and Pete. However, a few years ago Pete basically admitted he lied and it was all true. Since that point I frankly don't care if he is ever allowed back into baseball. I guess the one caveat is if they allow positive drug tested players to continue in baseball, I think Pete should be allowed back into the game. So, I guess I am ambivalent. I just see how his offense is any worse than Steve Sax or other druggies.

You make a point, however, IMO, they shouldn't allow the positive drug tested players to continue either.

 

[ChrisK114]

You make a point, however, IMO, they shouldn't allow the positive drug tested players to continue either.

I agree, but they do, so why should gambler's be any different.

 

[televisionarchives]

Even if they lift the ban I'm sure he won't get voted in.

 

[ChrisK114]

Even if they lift the ban I'm sure he won't get voted in.

I am not so sure about that.

 

[BillD1984]

Okay here is my take. While I agree that what Pete Rose did was wrong, I also believe in second chances. Steroid users get second, third, and sometimes fourth chances. Pete Rose screwed up when he lied about betting on baseball. If he had admitted it to begin with, he may have gotten a second chance. He has since done so. He bet that his team would win. If they can prove he bet on them to lose, then I think he should be banned for life, because there is no telling what history he may have altered. If, and only if, Pete Rose can prove he no longer gambles, I think he should get another chance. The first time he buys a lotto ticket though, he outta here.

That's EXACTLY how I feel.