• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rose says he picked wrong vice

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rose definitely has a valid point.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

The Man

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
5,135
Reaction score
1,693
Location
York, Pennsylvania
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rose definitely has a valid point.
I don't think he has a valid point. The punishment for gambling on baseball while a participant in MLB is permanent banishment, and he knew that. The penalty for using PEDs is not banishment. Hell, when Rose played PEDs weren't even illegal in baseball. How do we know Rose didn't use PEDs.

Besides, it's just the Hall of Fame. Does anyone really care who is or isn't in the Hall of Fame? It just doesn't matter.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,107
Reaction score
45,057
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've never been a fan of Giamatti's decision but I went with it on precedent. Dowd had a hard on for Rose and never found any evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. Giamatti, in my opinion, wanted nothing more than to make a name for himself. However, that was all 1989. Fifteen years later we had the steroids scandal pop up and that was, in my opinion, a whole lot worse yet nobody has been banned. That's just asinine.
 

The Man

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
5,135
Reaction score
1,693
Location
York, Pennsylvania
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've never been a fan of Giamatti's decision but I went with it on precedent. Dowd had a hard on for Rose and never found any evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. Giamatti, in my opinion, wanted nothing more than to make a name for himself. However, that was all 1989. Fifteen years later we had the steroids scandal pop up and that was, in my opinion, a whole lot worse yet nobody has been banned. That's just asinine.
They need to change the rules so PED users are banned as well, but Rose should remain banned, IMO. I don't have a shred of sympathy for Pete Rose.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,107
Reaction score
45,057
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They need to change the rules so PED users are banned as well, but Rose should remain banned, IMO. I don't have a shred of sympathy for Pete Rose.
The lifetime ban that Landis handed down was to put a stop to rampant gambling. The '09 Sox weren't the first to entertain that vice but, as far as we know, they were the last because of what Landis did. I certainly don't condone Rose's conduct but he did what he did as a manager, not a player and he should still be fully eligible for all recognition due him as a player.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I don't think he has a valid point. The punishment for gambling on baseball while a participant in MLB is permanent banishment, and he knew that. The penalty for using PEDs is not banishment. Hell, when Rose played PEDs weren't even illegal in baseball. How do we know Rose didn't use PEDs.

Besides, it's just the Hall of Fame. Does anyone really care who is or isn't in the Hall of Fame? It just doesn't matter.
The HOF changed the rules to keep Pete Rose out in 1991, the ban from baseball did not call, at the time, for a ban from the HOF.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I've never been a fan of Giamatti's decision but I went with it on precedent. Dowd had a hard on for Rose and never found any evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. Giamatti, in my opinion, wanted nothing more than to make a name for himself. However, that was all 1989. Fifteen years later we had the steroids scandal pop up and that was, in my opinion, a whole lot worse yet nobody has been banned. That's just asinine.
Exactly, Steroids Change the stats, betting on the team you manage to win, does not change stats.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,107
Reaction score
45,057
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exactly, Steroids Change the stats, betting on the team you manage to win, does not change stats.
Manipulation through management is much more subtle and would be very hard to prove barring proving some material commonality. For example, if a manager regularly had his slugger bunt in a swing situation that would be grounds to suspect manipulation. While it could happen it would be REALLY hard to prove and would likely require complicity from a number of players and coaches.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How does anyone know that he only bet on his team to win? Because Rose said so?

How do we know Rose didn't use PEDs as well?
There is no evidence to the contrary, and Rose had a winning record.
 

The Man

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
5,135
Reaction score
1,693
Location
York, Pennsylvania
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no evidence to the contrary, and Rose had a winning record.
So then why did he gamble on baseball at all?

If he was a gambler, why didn't he just bet on other sports and leave baseball out of it?
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,107
Reaction score
45,057
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How does anyone know that he only bet on his team to win? Because Rose said so?

How do we know Rose didn't use PEDs as well?
The lawyer that investigated things issued a report. Look up "Dowd Report" and you'll find all the details.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So then why did he gamble on baseball at all?

If he was a gambler, why didn't he just bet on other sports and leave baseball out of it?
I didn't say Pete did not do anything wrong according to the rules, what I am saying is that it was not worthy of a lifetime ban, nor was it worthy of keeping him out of the HOF, it was not the same as the Black Sox scandal.
 

The Man

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
5,135
Reaction score
1,693
Location
York, Pennsylvania
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't say Pete did not do anything wrong according to the rules, what I am saying is that it was not worthy of a lifetime ban, nor was it worthy of keeping him out of the HOF, it was not the same as the Black Sox scandal.
Well we have different opinions on that. I think MLB's punishment on Rose is just, because if they went soft on him then other players and managers up to this day would be gambling on baseball. It would bring in a level of corruption. Proven PED users should be banned as well. Hopefully they'll change the rule so that happens. Ironically though, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, the poster boys for PED use in baseball, wouldn't be banned because its never been proven that they used PEDs.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I didn't say Pete did not do anything wrong according to the rules, what I am saying is that it was not worthy of a lifetime ban, nor was it worthy of keeping him out of the HOF, it was not the same as the Black Sox scandal.
Seriously? Read Rule 21. The Verifiable Truth: MLB's Rule 21: Misconduct; gambling prohibitions

It has always been the unwritten rule that if you are banned from playing or being apart of the professional baseball you would not make the Hall of Fame. It became official after Pete Rose. And there is no difference between Pete Rose and the Black Sox scandal nor the 2 dozen or more banned players who gambled on baseball since 1865. Pete Rose was a manager (what he got banned for). That means who picked who came into relief, who was in the line up, and a dozen other things that effects a game. That's no different then Chick Gandil who played like **** on purpose.

The only person who's well known for the gambling issue in baseball who should have never been banned was Shoeless Joe and it's a shame MLB hasn't lifted his ban yet.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well we have different opinions on that. I think MLB's punishment on Rose is just, because if they went soft on him then other players and managers up to this day would be gambling on baseball. It would bring in a level of corruption. Proven PED users should be banned as well. Hopefully they'll change the rule so that happens. Ironically though, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, the poster boys for PED use in baseball, wouldn't be banned because its never been proven that they used PEDs.
Bonds admitted it..... :shrug:
 
Top Bottom