| |
BGonline.org Forums
Long Rollout
Posted By: Stick In Response To: Pete Rose (Stick)
Date: Thursday, 2 October 2008, at 9:30 p.m.
"Thou shalt not bet on baseball, especially not on a game in which you play"
Baseball's sacrosanct rule, one that Pete Rose knew all too well I'm sure.
The original settlement Rose & Giamatti boiled down to Rose being banned from baseball but neither confirming or denying that he bet on baseball. At the time this would not have kept Rose out of the HoF, as Bob pointed out, the HoF (BBWAA/voters) & MLB are two separate entities though strongly linked. Two years later the HoF changed its rules so that any player barred from the game would also be ineligible for induction into the HoF.
- Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be eligible for the Hall of Fame
(Hall of Fame Rule 3e)
So in 1991 BB HoF's BoD amended its rules to screw over old Pete it seems. (and Shoeless Joe, those whores) If the HoF was forced to follow the same rules as the US judicial system such a thing would not have occured and stood. The passage of such a law would violate one of the articles forbidding ex post facto laws.
Rose has handled the entire situation piss poor at best. First, he didn't immediately come forward and say "Yup, I fucked up, I'm sorry, what can I do to right my wrongs?" Instead, he denied, he denied until he was blue in the nuts. Nobody in America I think believed Pete didn't bet on baseball after all the evidence was taken into account. He's not the shiniest coin in the collection academically and that is what has harmed his case the most.
Finally, Pete steps forward and admits he bet on baseball, even bet on the Reds (sinner!) but never bet on them to lose. Do we believe that? Myself, absolutely. Not only because I want to believe it but a competitor like Pete wouldn't be able to sleep at night if he ever bet on *himself* to lose. So if he only bet on the Reds to win where's the harm you might ask?
As a player/manager you're supposed to make long term decisions so your team can maximize its expectancy to get into the post season and have the best shot at winning the WS. As a gambler who may have made a bet that day on a team, your decision may be tainted with the idea of playing a player who you know should rest for the overall good of the season (don't risk a season ending injury to win 1 game, risk v. reward) par eg. So if Pete bet on his team to win certain days and simply didn't bet when he thought they may lose, this is definitely a problem.
Also, as reported by slimehole Paul Janszen, betting on sports may be a huge distraction when Pete is supposed to have his mind on the game. Janszen noted that one time at Riverfront the scoreboard wasn't working so Rose couldn't keep up to date on all his gambling bets. Janszen says during this time he'd call score services, get updates on the games, and flash Pete hand signals in the dugout. If this is true, it's certainly a distraction and another reason why illegal gambling should remain just that.
Pete claims though that he bet on the Reds to win every day. Not 3 days a week, not 5 days a week, every last day they played he bet on them to win. Is this true? Who knows...it could be, he could have dropped the line with his bookie at the beginning of his season saying "$2k on the Reds to win every game". If this is true it lessons the offense in that the goals of the gambler and the manager coincide more closely. I still think it's wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.
Even if Pete's ban from baseball was lifted are we sure he'd get the necessary 3/4ths of the votes he needs from the BBWAA to get in? The HoF's rule #5 stipulates the criteria that should be used by the BBWAA when voting:
- Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
I can't help but wave the BULLSHIT flag at listing the individual criteria in such a way as to make one think that each item is of anywhere near equal weight. We all know very well if this was true the racists, the wife beaters, the drug users, the other degenerate gamblers shouldn't have been inducted in the first place. I think the HoF needs to rewrite rule #5 or modify the HoF so that there are probably 3 people in it.
Also in my readings I found a lot of ppl saying something to the effect of "baseball is bigger than any individual who plays it". It makes sense and should hold true but I have to ask, is it? Is it really? If it was I wouldn't be sitting here today, typing this longwinded opinion of why Pete should or shouldn't be in the Hall. Maybe that's too short term, it is only 20 years old and perhaps it'll pass one Pete passes on, once I stop ranting (which, is to say, when I kick the hitchet), if that was true then I wouldn't know who Shoeless Joe Jackson was. These players aren't bigger than the game but they sure are sizing up to be a nice sized chunk.
Pete may have violated what is considered the #1 rule in baseball, don't bet on baseball, but I don't even believe that should be the #1 rule. The #1 rule should be, in some way, shape, or form, don't cheat. Cheating undermines any competition from baseball to backgammon. Baseball is willing to give drug addicts a 2nd go, a 3rd try, a 4th attempt, a jesus fuck, boot them already! I guarantee you the modern day roid users will be injected..I mean inducted NFP. Rose has an abrasive personality, doesn't particularly live up to the idol status he acheived on the field by being a stand up guy off the field (like, for eg., a Ken Griffey Jr.). He lied, changed his story time & time again until two decades later I believe we have something close to the truth. His apologies don't seem sincere to most because it's the kind of person he is.
Once you agree with all that you have to ask yourself, do I really give a shit? It's what he did on the field that I admired. How he took a good eye for the ball and great hands and turned that into a HoF player. What he lacked physical in other realms, compared to other players, he made up for tenfold by pulling his own weight 110% nose to the grindstone every day. He's a guy not only you want on your team, you certainly don't want him on the other team. I'm always amazed at how certain atheletes can stand out from the crowd in their respective domains. A Roger Federer, a Tiger Woods, an Alison Fischer, a Gary Kasparov, you get the drift. To excel at something that much takes more than natural talent or raw ability, it takes work 24/7/366 when you have that leap year day. Pete fucked up, Pete fucked up pretty bad in not only gambling illegal, betting on baseball, betting on his own team, but not owning up to it afterwards until like 15 years later. Get over it, he's paid his dues.
"Pete Rose should bypass the Hall of Fame and go straight to the Smithsonian" -Steve Garvey
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.