- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,651
- Reaction score
- 55,265
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Rose says he picked wrong vice - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN
I totally agree with Pete. His lifetime ban is an absolute farce in light of all these PED scandals. If Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmiero weren't banned then Rose shouldn't be either.
Rose definitely has a valid point.
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.
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.
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 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.
Ok. They made the right call then.
Exactly, Steroids Change the stats, betting on the team you manage to win, does not change stats.
Why was that the right call? What is YOUR beef with Pete? Do you deny his stats?
He gambled on the game. PED users should be banned as well.
Ok that is what Pete did, but why is betting on the team to win so bad?
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.
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?
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.
Why was that the right call? What is YOUR beef with Pete? Do you deny his stats?
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.
Rose says he picked wrong vice - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN
I totally agree with Pete. His lifetime ban is an absolute farce in light of all these PED scandals. If Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmiero weren't banned then Rose shouldn't be either.
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.
Pete accepted the ban voluntarily.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?