posted on September 25, 2004 08:15:31 PM new
Here is a good question for discussion...
Should Pete Rose be allowed to be elected to the Hall of Fame?
For those of you who do not know who Pete Rose is, use google and look him up...
I feel yes he should be allowed to be elected to the Hall of Fame, he is done his time, his crime for gambling was harsh and deserved, however he still has the record for hits and the Hall of Fame is missing something without him.
Have a note about gambling if they want, but he should be there.
posted on September 25, 2004 08:51:53 PM new
Twelve - you don't have a problem with the fact that he continually lied for more than a decade about and despite numerous opportunites to fess up and pay the piper years ago he decided to do so only when it would prove financially beneficial to himself to do so?
I agree with the people who felt that waiting until there was a publishing deal to take the opportunity to tell the truth put the final nail in his HOF coffin.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Sep 25, 2004 10:03 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2004 09:05:47 PM new
Pete Rose should be elected to the hall of fame. Rose played the game without drug enhancements. His records are pure. He excelled as an over achiever giving 120% in all games as a player & coach.
posted on September 25, 2004 09:07:30 PM new
You know Twelve, I have thought about this from time to time and I lean toward allowing him into the hall of fame for the legendary achievements he made in Baseball..
But then I teeter when I think about some of the athletes in the Olympics who have broken world records.. only to be stripped of their medals because of drug use.. I'm not sure if the two are completely comparable, but both were dishonorable.. so I guess I am really not able to decide one way or another.. Maggie
posted on September 25, 2004 09:24:42 PM new
The game of baseball like any game is played with rules. When someone breaks the rules they are punished for it. Rose knew what the consequences were for gambling and he got caught and was punished for it. Yes he did his time but I see no reason to now reward him by electing him to the HOF. He was a great baseball player in his time and probably would have gone on to become even greater had he not gotten caught. He basically threw his own career away, it was not taken from him, it was all his own fault. We do not reward cheaters or people that break the rules.
posted on September 26, 2004 05:44:00 AM new
No, I don't fenix, however I did say add a footnote to his induction. I didn't say reinstate him to baseball, but he should be in the HOF.
Pete Rose was a great player, is big problem began after becoming a coach... I said he deserved the ban, but still think he should be in the HOF for his record.
posted on September 26, 2004 10:01:37 AM new
I guess I'll take the minority position in that I don't think Rose should ever be allowed into the Hall of Fame. Baseball has had very clear rules about gambling and the consequences for gambling on baseball games, whether as a player, coach, general manager, etc. have always been clear. If someone wants to roll the dice anyway, thats on them. Rose not only bet on baseball but he bet on his team. Doing so not only was a clear and obvious violation of baseball rules, it quite likely effected how he managed games, thus tarnishing the integrity of the competition. Especially if he bet against his team at any point. I know he denies betting against his team but the guy lied for years about this whole thing so I'm not going to blindly accept his word that he never bet against the Reds.
Bottom line for me is that baseball's gambling policy has always been crystal clear (its even posted in every lockerroom in every stadium). Great players of the past have been banned from the Hall of Fame because they were invloved with gambling on the outcome of games. The "Blacksox" scandal immediatley comes to mind here. The 1919 Chicago White Sox team conspired with gamblers to fix the World Series (thus they became known as the Blacksox) and none of the players on that team (including the great Shoeless Joe Jackson) are in the Hall of Fame. So it isn't like there hasn't been precedent for lifetime bans. Rose was a great player but his willful choice to violate one of baseballs oldest and most most clear policies needs to be dealt with in the manner that is appropriate - lifetime ban. Hopefully the next player who has a Hall of Fame career will think twice about betting on the sport, and if he does it anyway, too bad, so sad. I'm a big believer in consequences and giving Rose a pass into the Hall of Fame would set a dangerous precedent, in my opinion.
posted on September 26, 2004 10:35:31 AM new
Both Rose and Bush should be admitted to the Fibbers Hall of Fame. No other distinction is deserved by either one.
posted on September 26, 2004 11:15:27 AM new
Fiset,
Nicely stated and I totally agree with your views 150%. Rose knew he was violating baseball's policies and even admitted his guilt. He must know suffer the consequences of his actions.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 26, 2004 11:45:02 AM new
Pete Rose was one of the greatest hitters of baseball. He played with so much intensity, and was admired by so many.
Being from Portland, I am used to regular sports scandals with the Trail Blazers. I have mixed feelings about the "NBA legal" use of marijuana by basketball players. When I say "legal" I mean that it isn't banned by the NBA, but it is illegal by our government. So, as many of us know, several Trail "Blazers" have been busted for possession of marijuana. I personally don't believe marijuana should be illegal. However, my problem with these basketball players using marijuana is that they have a commitment to their teammates, their organization, and their fans. I believe they betray that trust, but with no rules instituted, we will continue to see problems with this in the NBA.
When a rule is written in stone, then it is up to the individual player to decide whether they want to conform to the rules or march by their own beat. It seems to me that Pete Rose has chosen the latter and by that simple choice, he knew the consequences of his actions. I do not believe he has shown any remorse, and when commissioner Giamatti died, Rose used his death to portray himself as some sort of victim. As much as I would love to see Rose in the Hall, I don't believe he deserves it and if he was eligible for the Hall, others should be allowed as well. It would simply taint the hall of fame.
posted on September 26, 2004 12:26:30 PM new
I agree with you 100% Rusty.
I'm also a bit surprised at Twelve's question because he's so adamant about people being responsible for their own actions and accepting the consequences. Rose screwed up and lost.
posted on September 26, 2004 02:53:12 PM new
I believe that the Oliver North Hall of Infamy should be opened across the street and Pete Rose should be the first inductee and receiver of the Woody Hayes Trophy for 2004.
Sniping works up a thirst"
