Now that he has admitted to gambling on baseball, should he be reinstated and be allowed to enter the hall of fame if he is voted in?
As the all-time hits leader, I think he should be there. In the article, he has a great point that drug addicts would have been suspended for 6 months and had their rehabilitation paid for by major league baseball, but there was nothing for gambling addicts.
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3037 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
Yes. His record as a player speaks for itself, and in the greater scheme of things, what he did was really not that bad. Besides, the Hall of Fame should recognize achievements in baseball, not good moral character.
Beefer From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
I think the key argument about all of this is that he BET ON BASEBALL GAMES!!!
I don't think it is a moral judgment at all. He knew that betting on Baseball games was not allowed and yet he did it anyway. He still claims that he did not bet on his own games, but there is some evidence that seems to show that he was.
I believe that MLB does consider it a major offense for a player/manager to bet on Baseball games due to the possible inside information the person may have or that they could somehow effect the outcome of a game due to a bet they have placed.
KROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
Yes he belongs in the Hall Of Fame. The Hall is based on onfield accomplishments, not off the field issues. Yes he bet on baseball as a manager, so that kills him going in the Hall as a manager. As a player though, he was the most competitive, hard nose, always hustling player out there, as well as having more hits than anyone else. He should be elected to the Hall, but not allowed to have any kind of significant role with MLB.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16436 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1968 times:
According to your logic, we will have to remove about 20% of the current Hall Of Fame members.
Not necessarily. Pete Rose is a marquee player though (like a Wayne Gretsky) and his cheating was very high profile. Like it or not, Pete Rose was an allstar....and a higher bar for ethical behaviour is expected for the upper echelon of players.
The sheer controversy over his cheating should be enough to keep him out of the HOF until well after he is dead, if ever.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
LHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
He belongs in the hall because of his achievements, and he's finally taking steps to atone for his violation of the gambling rules.
Still, his decade-long lie factors against him.
I think a fair result would be for Pete to be posthumously eligible. He wouldn't be able to profit from his hall of fame presence, or do anything else to tarnish the hall by his actions, but he'd eventually wind up there.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
I say let him in to the hall, but include the bit about him being banned for gambling on his plaque. His on the field accomplishments are more than enough to warrant him a spot in Cooperstown. I wouldn't want to see him managing again though. The vibe I'm getting from him in the media lately is that he expects to be reinstated, get into the hall, and get his old job of managing the Reds back.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5459 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
Absolutely not. In this incidence, Rose's off-the-field actions could very well have affected his on-the-field actions. It reeks of the Black Sox scandal, except the burden of misbehavior rests firmly on one man instead of an entire team. If players caught up in the Black Sox scandal (Shoeless Joe Jackson, for instance) are banned from the Hall, Pete Rose should also.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Gunships From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 574 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
Pete Rose accepted a lifetime ban from baseball and then spent years lying about his gambling activities. Shortly before his new book comes out, he admits to betting. Kind of makes me wonder about the timing.
In my opinion, he should be in the Hall of Fame. But he broke a rule (fair or not, it was still a rule and he accepted the punishment) and is not eligible. It's that simple.
I wonder if he's already been told that the ban will be lifted, and maybe that's his reason for speaking out? I have a hard time believing he "saw the light" all of a sudden and had to go public without regard for money or re-instatement. There's more to the story.
Dc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
75 years from now when a kid walks into the hall of fame and asks "who has the record for the most hits" ??? What will they say ??? Can they say Pete Rose ??? Pete Rose is one of the greatest baseball players ever. He should be in the hall of fame.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!