And he should be in the Baseball Hall-of-Fame. I don't care what he did off the field, his on-field accomplishments alone warrant him being in the HOF. His problems came when he was a coach/manager not as a player.

As much as I do not care for Pete Rose, the person, I agree that his accomplishments on the field should have merited entrance into Cooperstown.

However, you need to remember the upstanding moral fiber of those who have a vote. Individuals who will embellish the negative in anyone's life if it means getting a lead story or a headline. People who will twist fact with fiction if it means a bonus check for the month.

When someone reminds them of what their work is doing to people, teams, leagues and the sport, those pilar-of-the-community correspondents insist they are "just doing my job".

I totally agree. What he accomplished was amazing....

Then I will be the dissenter in the turn this conversation has taken. Pete Rose was a member of Major League Baseball when he bet on games. Being a part of a game, as a manager, means that he can influence the outcomes. That action alone is worth his permanent ban from baseball. There is absolutely no proof that Buck Weaver ever bet on a game, or even participated in throwing a game, but he is banned forever from baseball simply because he was roomates with one of the Black Sox participants. Rose, on the other hand, knew what he was doing and that it violated the ethics of MLB.

Did you get this from a list of oxymorons?

Ummm....er....yeah. The same one that has Senate Ethics Committee, Army Intelligence, and Vegitarian Chili on it! :D

Okay, he bet on baseball. SO WHAT?

As far as I'm concerned, everyone in the game should be required to bet on their own team. It should be part of the salary structure. The fact that a team's performance is not a major part of it, IMO, helped ruin the game of baseball.

Like I said, I'm not a Rose fan. Have had at least two face-to-face disagreements with him at the race track and he jumped on me because Michael Bolton wanted to play the game by his own rules in a softball game. IMO, he has zero class off the field and is an egotistical ******* who is his own worst enemy.

However, even those who would like to see him banned from ever walking within a mile of any baseball field acknowledge that there is no evidence he ever bet against a team or player over which he had any type of influence.

The man deserves his due and because you have all these "moral" baseball writers it will not happen until after his death. And, as big a sonofa***** he is, he deserves to be in the baseball HOF.

So....does that mean that Joe Jackson and Chick Gandel et al, should be reinstated to baseball so that Joe can be in the HOF? His career numbers and his performance, even during the Black Sox alleged throwing of the 1919 Series would warrant a HOF induction, and he wasn't even allowed to complete his career. And Joe was supposedly a really nice, and humble guy. Being a ******* doesn't keep one out of the HOF, case in point Tyrus R Cobb. However, being a stupid *******, like Pete Rose, by the tenets of Commissioners of the game, does.

There was nothing alleged about it. There was also nothing particularly unique about it either considered in light of the whole of MLB at the time.

If Barry Bonds gets into the Hall, there is no reason other than pure stubbornness on the part of the pretend commissioner to keep Rose out.

How do you figure? By what yardstick are you measuring my use of the term "alleged?" In a court of law, all "conspirators" were found to be not guilty on all counts, including conspiracy to commit a confidence game. The presiding judge even complimented the jury for what he felt to be a "just verdict" after all evidence and testimony had been given. At that time, and to his death, Buck Weaver denied any knowledge of a fix, and certainly any involvement, and continued to petition MLB to reinstate him.

Though there are rumors of fixes throughout the history of baseball, none have been proved. I am sure that there were a lot of shady dealings in earlier 20th century baseball, though, considering the poor pay, the existence of the reserve clause, and the way many owners treated ballplayers in general.

However, one person presided over the fate of the Chicago 8, and that was Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the newly appointed commissioner of MLB. Regardless of the finding of a court of law, Landis chose to ban the players for life.

Pretty much the same fate that Pete Rose faced, except that Rose chose to be put on the ineligible list if baseball ceased investigating the matter, and to prevent further legal investigation. (Sounds to me as though he had/has something to hide.) Of course, the caveat to that was that after one year he could begin to petition MLB for reinstatement, which he has done, and which has subsequently been denied.

I don't agree. MLB baseball, against the advice of many, did not choose to ban "performance enhancing" substances until after the 2002 season. Therefore, for the majority of their careers, Bonds, Palmiero, Sosa, McGwire, and anyone else engaged in these practices were not violating any code of baseball, unless they continued to do so in any season 2003-2006. So, why should their legal accomplishments lead to them being banned from the HOF?

Of course, I don't really believe that any of them will ever see the hall, because of the subsequent Balco scandal and the prevailing attitude of the nation regarding the taking anything of a performance enhancing nature.

That's called managing your business. No different than discharging, firing, however you would like to refer as termination of any other employee.

"Legal" investigation? How are you using the term "legal"? MLB can only leverage what they have. The ONLY thing baseball could have done is what they did.

Another joke, IMO. These alleged enhancement substances do not enhance performance, they enhance the bodies development. What people take exception to is the results, or by-products of that development.

:cool:

Correct. Which is what happened to Pete Rose as well.



Sorry. Should have read "criminal."


Won't get me to argue that one at all. However, MLB did argue their merit, albeit silently, by not doing anything about them long after every other sport had outlawed their use.

I wasn't referring to whether all persons banned deserved to be banned, but whether the fix was in on the 1919 series. It was, no doubt, no need to use words like "alleged"... unless, of course, you are considering the various confessions, including that of Shoeless Joe, to be invalid.

The court only addressed what was illegal and whether the prosecution proved a crime (or, considering it was a jury verdict), whether the jury felt the guilty verdict was "just" considering the way players were treated and all the rest. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as a finding of innocence. Just ask the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

No matter how you weasle it, Bonds and his ilk do not deserve HOF entry, IMO.

In my personal opinion, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, there is no ignoring the fact that MLB offcially turned a blind eye to performance enhancers for many, many years, thereby legitimizing, at least in the players minds, the use of such products. Therefore, the argument can be put forth by anyone desiring to play DA, that the achievements of these players should merit their induction.

It is not a hard and fast, black and white issue like that which faced the Black Sox, William Cox, or Pete Rose. (Well...since 2002 it has been, but not before.)

Even Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb were suspected of possible game fixing and gambling, though nothing was ever proved in their case. Had it been and you can rest assured that the original class inducted into the HOF would have looked somewhat different.

Until lawyers and players found they could find judges who were willing to stick their noses where they didn't belong, baseball was operated as a private entity/business with employees. Until the Curt Flood case, the only time the government and baseball got together was to set and monitor the anti-trust exemption (which if MLB was smart, should have been dumped a long time ago). Do not confuse that statement with saying there were no legal or criminal matters to address, because obviously there were.

And as far as the drug issue, you cannot completely blame MLB. The owners had actually voiced opinions against their use for years, but it was the player's union which made the point a labor issue and we all know that EVERYTHING barring a violation of law, is negotiable.

Personally, I would love to see MLB go under. If there is anyone in this country that cannot live without MLB, they are the ones who need to be in a hospital/rehab facility. I know there are others who are equally tired of hearing the owners and players whine and cry about everything including not making enough money and want more while the overall skill level of the players decline.

Almost like dealing with SP players.