OT: Pete Rose still barred from baseball
Baseball Commisioner Manfred issued his decision today. It seems well-written and well-reasoned. Interestingly, while he's barring Rose from any position in MLB, it does seem to me that Manfred's inviting the HOF to allow him to be voted upon. Here's a link to the press release and decision: http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/8/4/6/1...t_u35dqem0.pdf
December 14th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^
Well said. He was one of the best to ever play the game. He deserves to be in the HOF.
December 14th, 2015 at 1:50 PM ^
"Pete rose was great. Pete Rose bet on baseball and was banned"
That can go right next to:
"Barry Bonds was one of the best hitters ever. He probably also took steroids"
etc. etc. etc.
December 14th, 2015 at 5:24 PM ^
They were all on roids...
December 14th, 2015 at 8:15 PM ^
bonds is a creep, but the other 2 are by all accounts great guys. still, no HOF for that kind of cheating.
December 14th, 2015 at 1:51 PM ^
I have never followed this closely but wasn't his betting done while he was a coach? I don't understand why he is restricted from the HOF as a player. His betting has nothing to do with his achievements as a player. I stand corrected if he was betting on his own team as a player.
December 14th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^
He is on Major League Baseball's ineligible list. If you are on that list, you are ineligible for the Hall of Fame.
Pete Rose signed a document that permitted his placement on the ineligible list.
I don't understand why people think this is anything other than Rose's own doing.
December 14th, 2015 at 1:59 PM ^
What he did was as a coach and not as a player. Not to mention he was given the right to appeal after ten years. Hell, people have spent less time in jail for murder, rape, etc and have been able to rejoin society.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^
Doesn't matter. He is Peter Edward Rose, and he signed a document that made him permanently ineligible. The document doesn't differentiate between player or coach.
What happens with other people and other crimes does not matter one bit. Rose signed up for this. He's appealed in accordance with the agreement.
I don't see what the issue is.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:15 PM ^
I agree, his fault, his problem, and that he has the right to appeal. All I am saying is that MLB is stupid for not allowing him the chance to be in the hof. He was one of the best ever. The new generation of MLB fans (if there are any) does not even know who he is or what he did.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^
And for what it's worth, there is now evidence out there (under seal for years) that he gambled on his own team while playing.....
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines…
December 14th, 2015 at 4:21 PM ^
Please get your fact straight. It was exposed this summer that he bet on baseball while a player. He lied about this for decades.
There is one cardinal sin in baseball -- betting on the games. To cross this line is to take on whatever punishment is given to you. He needs to stay out of baseball forever.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:50 AM ^
John Dowd conclusively proved he bet as a PLAYER in 1989. There is a 225 page report and 7 volumes of exhibits which show this. Nothing went into that report which wasn't independently corroborated by TWO other separate sources.
The documentation found this summer by ESPN from hs bookie also conclusively shows he bet as a PLAYER.
Not that it matters. Rule 21 States that anyone, player, manager or otherwise, who bets on baseball is banned from the game for life.
Rule 21 doesn't make the player/manager distinction.
Also, Giamatti gave him the right to appeal in ONE year, not TEN.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:57 AM ^
But even if he hadn't bet as a player, LIFETIME BANISHMENT is the necessary super deterrant punishment for an action that threatens an entire sport. Even being associated with bookies is a terrible thing because it sends a message to fans that the whole game might not be on the level. Actually betting on them tears away at the whole foundation of organized sport.
Nothing else is a bigger threat to sports. Not steroids, not anything even remotely close. If the general public starts thinking that participants aren't trying to win and are throwing games on behalf of bookies, the whole thing is dead.
So to prevent that, you draw a big red line and say "IF YOU DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS, YOU'RE GONE FOREVER AND EVER AND YOU'RE FUCKED NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE OR WHAT YOU ACCOMPLISHED."
Who knows how many borderline players in MLB chose not to make that decision because they saw how hard MLB came down on one of the most popular players ever. If they'd do that to Pete, then they're serious and they'll damn sure come down on you, .240 hitting back up infielder.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
John Dowd has stated that there have been a number of players who have approached him privately to say the example of Pete Rose has prevented them from following down this path.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^
December 14th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^
December 14th, 2015 at 2:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^
I agree with jg2112's mantra above - Rose agreed to the ban, so painting him as a "victim" here is a bit much. And adding to that "poor misunderstood Pete Rose" impression is that Rose lied about gambling on baseball for years and years. And his brutalizing Jim Gray for what was a foreseeable question at the World Series fifteen years ago was disgusting.
Was Rose a gifted player? Sure. Passionate? Oh yeah. A blue-collar charm to him? No doubt.
But when a guy who compulsively lied for as long as he did assures us he never bet against the Reds? Tells us he never bet as a player? For decades? And gets exposed as a liar, again, just last summer? www.espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986
Uhmm, I reserve the right to be anti-Rose.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^
(linked by the OP) you'll see that he continued to lie when he met with the commissioner in September. Next time he appeals he might want to get his story straight first -- if it's even possible for him, which I doubt.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^
Rather than asking for permission. Always a crossroads decision. It failed for Pete. We move forward.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:24 PM ^
Great news! I was hoping the Commsioner would uphold the previous decisions and not let Rose be reinstated or in the HOF. Everything Rose did (and admitted to), which is extremely well documented, he did selfishly and for his own sole benefit. He knew the risks when he bet on baseball. The fact that alot of time has passed, or MLB's own ineptitude on PEDs/Steroids and other non-Rose baseball matters should count as factors in giving Pete Rose a break now, is just wrong. Leave him for all time as the asterisk that he is!
December 14th, 2015 at 2:22 PM ^
December 14th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^
People never want to miss an opportunity to get up on their moral high-horses. He gambled and lied about it. BFD.
I don't care if he's reinstated to baseball, but it seems silly to keep a player with his career out of the HoF.
Oh, and rehang the banners in Crisler too.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:41 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2015 at 4:31 PM ^
Gambling in baseball is THE CARDINAL SIN!! The 1919 Black Sox Scandal called into question the validity of the game.
Pete then spent the insuing 20+ years lying about when he bet on baseball. No one can put any faith into anything he has said given his track record. If it came out tomorrow that he bet against his team or made line-up changes to improve the team for tomorrow at the expense of today, absolutely no one would be surprised.
His being barred from the game, and most importantnly the HoF is the correct punishment.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:41 PM ^
December 14th, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^
The final paragraph - which as the OP mentions does seem to open the door at a future HOF vote as it would be a ceremonial activity that the commissioner could theoretically approve per the ruling - is rather interesting. If that is within the scope of the intent of that statement, that seems like a fair middle road in all this, if there is a way for him to be at least recognized as a the incredible player that he was.
As others have mentioned though, he has admitted that he still bets recreationally, was shown to be less than truthful in that OTL piece in June where his betting ledger surfaced and I would think that there is enough there to be cocerned - by the league's standards- about him having a position on an MLB or minor league franchise.
I suppose I am of two minds on this one - I see where he probably shouldn't be working for a club if the league feels he is a risk and I see their point there, but I have no problem honoring the player Rose if they'll let folks do that.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^
I don't have a problem with Pete in the HOF, but he should not be given a MLB position. A corollary to this HOF reasoning would be for the HOF to also honor Shoeless Joe Jackson.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^
December 14th, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^
seems stupid to keep rose out
December 14th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^
A new book about Cobb claims that his racism (along with other negative charges against him) has been exaggerated.
December 14th, 2015 at 3:16 PM ^
revisionist history
December 14th, 2015 at 3:38 PM ^
Well, it might be re-revisionist history, as apparently the basis for our notion of Cobb as a despicable person is a book written around the time of his death.
December 14th, 2015 at 5:42 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^
They can't according to their current rules. He is on MLB's ineligible list, which precludes his consideration for the HOF.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:01 AM ^
They are completely separate and different. Nothing Manfred and MLB does has any affect on the HOF. All Manfred can do is rule on his reinstatement to the MLB.
The HOF has a rule that *any* player (not just Rose) who has been banned from baseball is ineligible from the HOF.
Theoretically, they could change the rule. If so, it would be up to the Veteran's Committee to decide. HOF PResident Van Idelstine has already tated they have no intention of changing the rule.
December 14th, 2015 at 2:52 PM ^
Rose spent the better part of the last 25 years showing his ass to MLB, and its fans, consistently displaying a remarkable lack of integrity.
Fuck that guy.
December 14th, 2015 at 7:00 PM ^
December 14th, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^
It contines to amaze me how often in society today we find it acceptable to dilute our moral and ethical standards - especially when its sports related. OJ wasn't so bad either, I guess. /s Or, is THAT where we're drawing the line today?
December 14th, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^
Pete Rose makes a ton of money right now, and drives a Bentley. He has done a good job of milking this ban for personal profit as it keeps his name in the news and his appearance fees stay high.
December 14th, 2015 at 3:02 PM ^
The idea that Rose has "been through enough" and all of that... I'm real mixed on it.
When you go back and read the rules of baseball, going back to the first rules set out in the 1850s and 1860s, betting has always been among the first things prohibited for players. From the beginning, it's consistently been one of the keystone and fundamental things that are not allowed.
Pete Rose bet on games he played in. He also bet on games he managed. Baseball has always considered this an egregious breach of the integrity of the game. Period.
It should also be mentioned that Pete has done himself few favors since 1989 in terms of helping his cause. He's become a cheap imitation of himself, signing baseballs with varying inscriptions on what he did or didn't do, lying, covering it up, "coming clean," etc.
Do I think Pete Rose is a Hall of Famer as far as what he accomplished on the field? Absolutely. And it seems the commissioner agrees. But as far as Rule 21 is concerned, Pete Rose should not be employable in the game of baseball.
December 14th, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^
If he were only marginally less an asshole, the ban would have been lifted many years ago. His situation is of his own making.
December 14th, 2015 at 5:44 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2015 at 3:16 PM ^
December 14th, 2015 at 3:56 PM ^
The only thing relevant about Rose's ban is that this guy's dad was the one who handed down the lifetime ban. Other than that, following the steroid era, MLB is hypocritical to ban a guy for rules violations.
December 14th, 2015 at 4:08 PM ^
I seem to have an opinion about this, which I find suprising as I really don't care about baseball or MLB.
I asked my friends that care about baseball about this and they're comment was that there is one universal rule in the MLB and that is "DO NOT GAMBLE," as a result of the Black Sox scandal that almost ended baseball. He knew this and gambled. He lied for 25 years and then admitted he gambled as a manager, but in June there has been evidence that he gambled as a player. I understand that he was a great baseball player, but there are consequences for your actions and I can understand the commisioner's stance.
If the commissioner had said, "That was the past, let's start over and I'll reinstate him," then I would be ok with it.
Also, from what I understand, MLB doesn't control the HOF. The HOF independently agreed to ban Pete Rose and anyone that was banned from MLB from eligibility. If that's the case, and anyone that is knows more about this can correct me, they could change the rule and allow the writer's to vote on his eligibility.
Now that I've gotten this off my chest, it's time to go back to things that matter to me, such as what I'm going to be doing after I get done with work.
December 14th, 2015 at 4:38 PM ^
From a number of the responses on this page, what I'm surprised by are the number of people that suggest he should be let into the HoF but barred from a MLB job.
My read of Pete Rose is that the only thing he is interested in is being in the HoF. His ego needs his playing career to be validated by being elected to the HoF.
By letting him into the HoF it is effectively ending his punishment. Given his gambling and subsequent actions lying and denying, it seems the only appropriate punishment is to maintain the ban.
December 14th, 2015 at 4:49 PM ^
Nobody quite does out of touch like MLB.
Yes, keep on keeping Rose outta the hall, while Fanduel and DraftKings are all over your sport, and you've had everything from steriods to greenies to corked bats to smaller parks to liver baseballs.
Who GAF? The people that last saw Rose play are like 50 now, no one below 35 knows who he is because MLB hardly acknowledges him.
Rose'll get into the Hall and this is how it'll go down. In 20 years, with Rose battling illness or shortly after his death he'll get voted in. MLB will make a big deal about letting him in, even though they were huge douches the previous 40 years.