Pete Rose

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to J-BAY's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    In response to soups' comment:

    Zac, interesting posts.  But there's some flaws...

    1.  Were there signs in the dugouts saying not to bet on games?  Because there are no signs in dugouts right now denouncing PEDs.  None. 

    in every locker room in every Major League Baseball stadium

    there are no betting on BB signs

    my point was when rose bet it was clear it was a huge no no

    where as using peds was not as clear when guys like mcgwire used

     

     

    2.  Rose never bet against his own team, according to tons of sources.  Site your source if you're claiming that he did.  If it's just a rumor, don't write it.

    dowd said he thought so

    had some info but ran out of time B4 he could solidly prove it

    all I asked is what did rose get out of  'the deal'

    was it to beat dowd to the stronger proof or suppress such info

     

     

    3.  ARod is allowed to play right now, despite the fact that he is probably still using.  Rose isn't even allowed to attend a game.   There's a lot more hard evidence on A Rod than there ever was on Rose.  So if you think Rose should be banned, then by your own logic, ARod should be stranded on an island that's never heard of the game of baseball.

    perhaps it's my bad soup

    but U R not following me an vice versa

    I don't except the premise that using is as bad a gambling

    the conversation started with the OP comparing rose

    with present coaches that were users

    that's why I brought the signs into play

     

    BTW I don't think it's true that rose can't go to games

    read that he goes to reds games all the time

     

     

     

    4.  How many guys do you think were using speed, amphetamines, or a mixed cocktail during that era?  It's going to be a much, much higher rate than guys who are using PEDs today.  Much higher. And that's to say nothing of widespread cocaine use.

    not sure about '' much ,much ''

    but I don't disagree 

      however I don't see your point

    5. So, if Rose would just admit that he gambled, that would be enough to change people's minds? 

    I never said that, I only knocked him for still denying that's why he got booted  recently

     Then what's your take on Cabrera, the former Yank?  Three strikes and he should be out of the game forever...but he won't be.

    why do you say that

    things are getting better not worse in that dept

     

      If Rose had the same measure of protection that these cheaters do, he'd never have been banned.

    once again

    IMO 2 different unequal crimes

     




     




    He said he can't go to a game on a Michael Kay interview last wk, which motivated me to start this thread. However, he watches games round the clock from home.

     

     



    Did he happen to mention, if he was betting on them?Money Mouth

     



    LOL

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

     

    why do so many say he only bet to win ( not that is matters all that much)

    the story goes he made a deal with MLB

    well if he got a lifetime ban after making a deal

    just what did he get out of the deal ?

    keeping the fact that he did bet against his team quiet ?

     



    Drivel. Pete would never have betted against his team, not in his personality makeup.

    thing is

    when you owe the book

    they have people who help change your ''personality makeup'

     

    I remember the Reds when Pete was manager, and with the exception of 1989 (during the distraction from the controversy) they were always competitive, were a playoff contender into September almost every year, and I dont recall Pete being overly questioned for possibly suspect moves he made that decided games during that period. Doesnt add up.

     

    1 wouldn't have to do it very often

    but if 1 knew when certain players were going to have a off days

    and a certain pitcher was starting and bet

    who would notice

     

     

    Besides, there is no evidence that he ever bet against his team, not that I have ever heard.

    FWIW


    Dowd told the New York Post on Wednesday he thought it was "probably right" that Rose not only bet on Reds games but that he bet against the Reds during the mid-to-late-1980s when Rose managed Cincinnati

     

    Dowd said Thursday he was asked by the Post whether he came across any evidence that Rose gambled against his team. Dowd said he told the paper there was some, but it was inconclusive.

    "I was never able to tie it down,'' Dowd said. "It was unreliable, and that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it. I was not trying to start something here.''

    Dowd also told the Post that Rose did not bet on the Reds whenever two pitchers, including Mario Soto, started, which "sent a message through the gambling community that the Reds can't win" on those day

    http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1212/1475769.html




    what did rose get out of making a deal

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    Gambling is pro baseball's original sin. In the early days, gambling and baseball went hand in hand. The Black Sox scandal brought this sin to the forefront, and ever since then it has been the one unpardonable sin. I can understand why. Gambling in all sports has the potential to undermine completely the trust of fans in the results of competition. If the fix is in, pro sports are reduced to being scripted entertainment, much like "pro" wrestling. A fixed game is a game you can't trust and its results are rendered meaningless. Individual cheating within a game may impact the outcome, but not to the same degree as a fix can.





    "Hold it fellows, that don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change."

    -Elvis Presley

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to soups' comment:

    Zac, interesting posts.  But there's some flaws...

    1.  Were there signs in the dugouts saying not to bet on games?  Because there are no signs in dugouts right now denouncing PEDs.  None. 

    2.  Rose never bet against his own team, according to tons of sources.  Site your source if you're claiming that he did.  If it's just a rumor, don't write it.

    3.  ARod is allowed to play right now, despite the fact that he is probably still using.  Rose isn't even allowed to attend a game.   There's a lot more hard evidence on A Rod than there ever was on Rose.  So if you think Rose should be banned, then by your own logic, ARod should be stranded on an island that's never heard of the game of baseball.

    4.  How many guys do you think were using speed, amphetamines, or a mixed cocktail during that era?  It's going to be a much, much higher rate than guys who are using PEDs today.  Much higher. And that's to say nothing of widespread cocaine use.

    5. So, if Rose would just admit that he gambled, that would be enough to change people's minds?  Then what's your take on Cabrera, the former Yank?  Three strikes and he should be out of the game forever...but he won't be.  If Rose had the same measure of protection that these cheaters do, he'd never have been banned.

     



    Rose can attend games, Ive seen him at Riverfront and GABP in Cincy many times. And dont forget the ovation he got at the AS Game in Atlanta in 99 or so when MLb had no choice but to let him come. He just cant participate in any baseball related activities in connection with the league. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    Pete also regularly gives hitting advice to whoever will listen. Last week he approached a slumping Todd Frazier about something he noticed in his swing. Frazier got two hits the next day, and got three more yesterday including a long HR. It doesnt seem as though MLB considers this any violation of his banning. So basically what it amounts to is that he is banned from officially coaching, managing, or being in the HOF. And BTW, his book "Pete Rose's Winining Baseball", written in the 70's, is an excellent source of baseball knowledge. Id recommend it to any HS or little league ball player. Down to earth, easy to understand and very fundamental. I looked at it often as a kid. Good stuff.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    just as dowd was closing in on the evidence that sneaky pete bet against his team both sides "settled" on a lifetime ban.  Rose agreed to the ban and now has to live with it.  it was mutually agreed upon. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to soups' comment:

    Zac, interesting posts.  But there's some flaws...

    1.  Were there signs in the dugouts saying not to bet on games?  Because there are no signs in dugouts right now denouncing PEDs.  None. 

    2.  Rose never bet against his own team, according to tons of sources.  Site your source if you're claiming that he did.  If it's just a rumor, don't write it.

    3.  ARod is allowed to play right now, despite the fact that he is probably still using.  Rose isn't even allowed to attend a game.   There's a lot more hard evidence on A Rod than there ever was on Rose.  So if you think Rose should be banned, then by your own logic, ARod should be stranded on an island that's never heard of the game of baseball.

    4.  How many guys do you think were using speed, amphetamines, or a mixed cocktail during that era?  It's going to be a much, much higher rate than guys who are using PEDs today.  Much higher. And that's to say nothing of widespread cocaine use.

    5. So, if Rose would just admit that he gambled, that would be enough to change people's minds?  Then what's your take on Cabrera, the former Yank?  Three strikes and he should be out of the game forever...but he won't be.  If Rose had the same measure of protection that these cheaters do, he'd never have been banned.

     



    You're the second to post that on this thread. Where are you guys getting that?

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to slasher9's comment:

    just as dowd was closing in on the evidence that sneaky pete bet against his team both sides "settled" on a lifetime ban.  Rose agreed to the ban and now has to live with it.  it was mutually agreed upon. 



    No way that doesnt get leaked out in 20+ years if its true, no way. We'd have heard about that in detail years ago and it would have been all over everything. Youd be pretty hard pressed to show any managerial moves Pete made that were out of the ordinary that led to Reds losses. Youd not only have to have some bookie that said "yeah, I took bets from Pete against the Reds", youd also have to show something he did on the field that led to a loss. Not buying it.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    I think enough is enough. IMO he's done his penance. He's not even allowed to go to a ballgame as a fan. Meanwhile some former players that were PED users are coaches. It's also clear, despite his mistakes, that he loves the game. When this sham of a commisioner retires (see PEDs) , his successor should reinstate him.  

     




    do they have a sign in every locker room saying

     

    ''do not use peds''

    maybe they should but do they?

     

    just the other day he denied getting booted for gambling

    and you think all should be forgiven?

    he said it was for lying about gambling

     

    When this sham of a commisioner retires (see PEDs) , his successor should reinstate him.

    U almost make it sound like it was bud who suspended rose

    so far it's 3 commishes vs your opinion

     

     

    I guess it's just to hard for some to grasp

    how much damage the perception of a fix game would do to the game

    roid damage isn't even close



    You Nailed It 100 Percent.

    +1,000

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    It's not the crime, it's the coverup. Rose denied, denied, denied until ...  you guessed  it ... he had a book to sell. Had  he come clean from the start, we wouldn't be  discussing this now.

     




    Actually, in Rose's case, the punishment was for the crime AND the coverup.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Gambling is pro baseball's original sin. In the early days, gambling and baseball went hand in hand. The Black Sox scandal brought this sin to the forefront, and ever since then it has been the one unpardonable sin. I can understand why. Gambling in all sports has the potential to undermine completely the trust of fans in the results of competition. If the fix is in, pro sports are reduced to being scripted entertainment, much like "pro" wrestling. A fixed game is a game you can't trust and its results are rendered meaningless. Individual cheating within a game may impact the outcome, but not to the same degree as a fix can.





    "Hold it fellows, that don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change."

    -Elvis Presley



    If we all knew exactly what sporting events were actually fixed, IMO we'd be shocked; start with boxing matches & basketball point shaving. There were rumors Earl Morrall threw SB III.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Gambling is pro baseball's original sin. In the early days, gambling and baseball went hand in hand. The Black Sox scandal brought this sin to the forefront, and ever since then it has been the one unpardonable sin. I can understand why. Gambling in all sports has the potential to undermine completely the trust of fans in the results of competition. If the fix is in, pro sports are reduced to being scripted entertainment, much like "pro" wrestling. A fixed game is a game you can't trust and its results are rendered meaningless. Individual cheating within a game may impact the outcome, but not to the same degree as a fix can.





    "Hold it fellows, that don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change."

    -Elvis Presley

     



    If we all knew exactly what sporting events were actually fixed, IMO we'd be shocked; start with boxing matches & basketball point shaving. There were rumors Earl Morrall threw SB III.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, and the motivation behind every fix is gambling. That's why it is such a big deal.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    The difference between Landis and Selig as commissioners is that Selig lost the concept of "best interests of the game." Landis didn't care about the not guilty verdicts for the BlackSox, he took the tact that gambling was ruining the game of MLB. He was right, it was, and it hit its ugly head in 1919. To be balanced, of course the owners treated the players mostly like dirt--except for Babe Ruth, but he didn't get that big contract till much later with the Yanks 10 years after the scandal. The players on the Chicago White Sox were not getting paid even close to passable pay for a winning team--so some crossed the line for extra dough. Perspective on that is important. But Landis I still feel did the right thing...the message was sent. Now, we fast forward and I say you lighten up the stance on "gambling" and go after the PEDs...I'm sorry, altering your performance with drugs has a massive impact on contests, more so than a guy conniving to "throw a game." Today, with all the camera views, it's almost impossible to even try to throw a game without people catching it right away.




    The bigger difference -- the REAL DIFFERENCE -- between Landis and Selig is that Landis didn't have a players union to worry about. It doesn't matter if Landis did the right thing or the wrong thing, he could do whatever he wanted (and the owners wanted) because there was no players union to protect the players. Remember, Landis' ruling only affected the players. It did not address the mistreatment of the playrers by a scmbag owner like Comiskey that created the environment that led to the the Black Sox scandal in the first place.

    Put Landis in as commissioner in the mid-1990s. He wouldn't have had any more success in ridding the game of steroids because the power of the players union was at its peak.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Pete Rose


    I think baseball has extracted their pound of flesh from Rose by banning him from the game for life.

    The guy is baseball's all time hit leader he belongs in Cooperstown for the way he played the game.

    Rose was one of those guys that you wished played for your team, he was that good, a team player, ran everything out left it on the field every game.

    The gambling while he was a manager came much later long after he had retired as a player.

    Denying him the hall doesn't make sense.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    And here's Arod for all we know has been cheating using PEDs since high school and he is actually playing.

    How does that make sense? How is that fair?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

     

    Gambling is pro baseball's original sin. In the early days, gambling and baseball went hand in hand. The Black Sox scandal brought this sin to the forefront, and ever since then it has been the one unpardonable sin. I can understand why. Gambling in all sports has the potential to undermine completely the trust of fans in the results of competition. If the fix is in, pro sports are reduced to being scripted entertainment, much like "pro" wrestling. A fixed game is a game you can't trust and its results are rendered meaningless. Individual cheating within a game may impact the outcome, but not to the same degree as a fix can.





    "Hold it fellows, that don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change."

    -Elvis Presley

     

     



    If we all knew exactly what sporting events were actually fixed, IMO we'd be shocked; start with boxing matches & basketball point shaving. There were rumors Earl Morrall threw SB III.

     

     



    Yes, and the motivation behind every fix is gambling. That's why it is such a big deal.

     

     



    Yes, but aspiring to a fix-free utopia is another thing. As I posted before, Rose should be in the hall with this black chapter clearly stated on his plaque; keeping him out shall not achieve or even aspire to a utopian integrity for the game.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Pete Rose


    And I don't want to hear it's Arod's first time, it's his second time he's been caught.

    He's the one who admitted cheating for years when he was with the Rangers.

    I went against my gut feelings and forgave him one time (2009) when I thought he was giving a heartfelt act of contrition to the fans and his teammates.

    Fool me once shame on you.

    Sorry but Rose hurt Pete Rose, but Arod introduced young players who he should have been mentoring to a PED pusher and in effect jeopardized their careers.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    As far as I'm concerned what he did was far more severe than what they have against Pete Rose.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     
    Yes, but aspiring to a fix-free utopia is another thing. As I posted before, Rose should be in the hall with this black chapter clearly stated on his plaque; keeping him out shall not achieve or even aspire to a utopian integrity for the game.

     



    This is not an attempt at a utopian integrity. The powers that be in pro baseball, in their exclusive club, can decide what crimes are unforgiveable just as any closed society does. They have decided certain crimes keep players out of the hall. Maybe Rose should have played pro football instead.

    Sports integrity is an oxymoron. Pete Rose is a plain old moron. Since he was too stupid to keep his gambling under wraps and discreet, he deserves the punishment he has received.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

     

     
    Yes, but aspiring to a fix-free utopia is another thing. As I posted before, Rose should be in the hall with this black chapter clearly stated on his plaque; keeping him out shall not achieve or even aspire to a utopian integrity for the game.

     

     

     



    This is not an attempt at a utopian integrity. The powers that be in pro baseball, in their exclusive club, can decide what crimes are unforgiveable just as any closed society does.They have decided certain crimes keep players out of the hall. Maybe Rose should have played pro football instead.

     

     

    Sports integrity is an oxymoron. Pete Rose is a plain old moron. Since he was too stupid to keep his gambling under wraps and discreet, he deserves the punishment he has received.

     



    Yes they can; and, although powerless to do otherwise, I can disagree with them; hence the thread.

    Don't get me wrong; even while as a player, Rose was known to be a louse. Some of his recent comments indicate that trait has not gone completely away.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

     

     

    Gambling is pro baseball's original sin. In the early days, gambling and baseball went hand in hand. The Black Sox scandal brought this sin to the forefront, and ever since then it has been the one unpardonable sin. I can understand why. Gambling in all sports has the potential to undermine completely the trust of fans in the results of competition. If the fix is in, pro sports are reduced to being scripted entertainment, much like "pro" wrestling. A fixed game is a game you can't trust and its results are rendered meaningless. Individual cheating within a game may impact the outcome, but not to the same degree as a fix can.





    "Hold it fellows, that don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change."

    -Elvis Presley

     

     



    If we all knew exactly what sporting events were actually fixed, IMO we'd be shocked; start with boxing matches & basketball point shaving. There were rumors Earl Morrall threw SB III.

     

     

     



    NH,

     

    That is precisely why players, coaches, umpires and or refs when the're found to be involved with gambling of any sort are strongly advised to stop. In the interest of protecting the intergrity of the games and the credibility of the leagues themselves. The state of Boxing today and to a lessor digree the prevailing perception of many including yours truly, that in the NBA the fix is on. Both serve as the poster children for why The NFL, MLB and the NHL all need to continue to make an example of those that are found to be quilty of breaking the rules negiotiated into their leagues respective CBA with regards to gambling. With an even greater penalty for one of their own employees that are not a part of the unions with a strong emphasis placed on field mangers and coaches. Who can impact the outcome of a game with decscision made During the game and in filling out the lineup. 

    I agree with Zac, that gambling and drugs regardless of what classification they fall under should not be compared in terms of their respective negative impacts on the integrity of the game.

    Where we differ is that I do think the penalty for the use of PEDS should be such that if a player is found to be using they should have to serve a penalty that makes using prohibitive.

    Further Selig and the owners need to stop being enablers of those found to be guitly of use. By forcing the union to agree to stiffer penalties. if they have too use the pressure of the united states congress to make the unions sit at the table and not hind behind civil liberty issue that frankly don't have any merit. Once the penalties for use include imposing lifetime bans on players after thier second positive and carries a 2 year ban and voiding thier contracts for first time offenders. The cycle will continue...in the end if we get to the heart of the matter. Why do players use PEDS...the anwser is to enhance their god given ability to compete at the highest level. The reward for that often results in a greater earning potential and in many cases can be the difference between making a club and not. Which puts into play a vicious cycle where players beginning at the high school level are faced with the question of not if but when do I have to begin using to keep up with the Jones. If that somehow paints me as the patriarch for the kids then so be it. One needs lok no further than football to see the impact that the pressure to use has on HS ATHELETES It's also time for the NFL and it's fandom to wake up and begin to exact pressure on them to start getting serious about the use because for the most part they seem to get a pass. On this issue.

    Back to Rose there's simply no compelling reason for MLB to reinstate him. None, and Selig who is very cognizant of his legesey and his place in the history of the game. Doesn't want to add enabler of gambling to his already tainted legesey. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    It doesn't address the PED issue. I am of the opinion that you ban guys for life for using PEDs, admitting to using PEDs, and lying after the fact....you don't let them hide behind the player's union and then get rewarded by playing when suspended. Let's forget about Rose and why he was banned for a moment, and realize that there has been no true way to punish the PED users. It seems the best anyone can do is give a hollow suspension in games, and then the guy gets his Get Out of Jail Free card and goes back to taking--like Bartolo Colon. Once a PED user, always a PED user for some of these yahoos.

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The difference between Landis and Selig as commissioners is that Selig lost the concept of "best interests of the game." Landis didn't care about the not guilty verdicts for the BlackSox, he took the tact that gambling was ruining the game of MLB. He was right, it was, and it hit its ugly head in 1919. To be balanced, of course the owners treated the players mostly like dirt--except for Babe Ruth, but he didn't get that big contract till much later with the Yanks 10 years after the scandal. The players on the Chicago White Sox were not getting paid even close to passable pay for a winning team--so some crossed the line for extra dough. Perspective on that is important. But Landis I still feel did the right thing...the message was sent. Now, we fast forward and I say you lighten up the stance on "gambling" and go after the PEDs...I'm sorry, altering your performance with drugs has a massive impact on contests, more so than a guy conniving to "throw a game." Today, with all the camera views, it's almost impossible to even try to throw a game without people catching it right away.

     




    The bigger difference -- the REAL DIFFERENCE -- between Landis and Selig is that Landis didn't have a players unionto worry about. It doesn't matter if Landis did the right thing or the wrong thing, he could do whatever he wanted (and the owners wanted) because there was no players union to protect the players. Remember, Landis' ruling only affected the players. It did not address the mistreatment of the playrers by a scmbag owner like Comiskey that created the environment that led to the the Black Sox scandal in the first place.

     

    Put Landis in as commissioner in the mid-1990s. He wouldn't have had any more success in ridding the game of steroids because the power of the players union was at its peak.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    It doesn't address the PED issue. I am of the opinion that you ban guys for life for using PEDs, admitting to using PEDs, and lying after the fact....you don't let them hide behind the player's union and then get rewarded by playing when suspended. Let's forget about Rose and why he was banned for a moment, and realize that there has been no true way to punish the PED users. It seems the best anyone can do is give a hollow suspension in games, and then the guy gets his Get Out of Jail Free card and goes back to taking--like Bartolo Colon. Once a PED user, always a PED user for some of these yahoos.

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to dannycater's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The difference between Landis and Selig as commissioners is that Selig lost the concept of "best interests of the game." Landis didn't care about the not guilty verdicts for the BlackSox, he took the tact that gambling was ruining the game of MLB. He was right, it was, and it hit its ugly head in 1919. To be balanced, of course the owners treated the players mostly like dirt--except for Babe Ruth, but he didn't get that big contract till much later with the Yanks 10 years after the scandal. The players on the Chicago White Sox were not getting paid even close to passable pay for a winning team--so some crossed the line for extra dough. Perspective on that is important. But Landis I still feel did the right thing...the message was sent. Now, we fast forward and I say you lighten up the stance on "gambling" and go after the PEDs...I'm sorry, altering your performance with drugs has a massive impact on contests, more so than a guy conniving to "throw a game." Today, with all the camera views, it's almost impossible to even try to throw a game without people catching it right away.

     

     




    The bigger difference -- the REAL DIFFERENCE -- between Landis and Selig is that Landis didn't have a players unionto worry about. It doesn't matter if Landis did the right thing or the wrong thing, he could do whatever he wanted (and the owners wanted) because there was no players union to protect the players. Remember, Landis' ruling only affected the players. It did not address the mistreatment of the playrers by a scmbag owner like Comiskey that created the environment that led to the the Black Sox scandal in the first place.

     

     

    Put Landis in as commissioner in the mid-1990s. He wouldn't have had any more success in ridding the game of steroids because the power of the players union was at its peak.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    [/QUOTE]

    While it is true that since the advent of the players union the commishinors job and his authority have been diminished. It is due to the union and the powers it wielded in strong arming the owners that the commishinors role changed and today is seen as a representative for the owners v the impartial voice of reason who role was to insure that both parties had a voice. 

    While I agree that Landis today would not be able to rule with an iron fist. His stance on gambling and the lifetime bans he imposed, were then and are today with Rose, IMHO just reward for an act that would eat at the very core of the sport. So with that said, Giamati's ruling has since been upheld by both of his successors. Today, not unlike when Landis was made his ruling Selig does have within his rights the best interest off the game clause. That allows him to suspend and or ban players & coaches for act deemed detrimental to the game. Powers that can be used at his discretion and in the case of biogenesis for example, powers that he should have used to impose greater sanctions given the body of evidence. Lost in the discussion about peds aside from the ethics of, is that purchasing and taking steroids without a doctors prescription is an illegal act. Regardless of what was and was not in the CBA entering this sordid period. 

    As for Rose and his quest to be reinstated, regardless of how loud he and his supporters beat the drum. In the end he made a choice to gamble on the results of his team, an act that is and has been strictly prohibited. One as the manager representing the owners carries the responsibility of upholding and enforcing all guidelines and policies of the club and MLB to those under his supervision. Must himself as the manager live the standards and accept his responsibility to uphold the clubs standards for conduct and follow the rules imposed by MLB all of which is outlined in his job description and his contract. That Rose is deserving of enshrignment based on his body of work as a player is not the argument. The argument is centered around what's in baseballs best interest. Reinstating him or just allowing him to be honored with out reinstatement. Sends a message to all that it's ok to gamble, because after a couple of decades all will be forgiven. A slippery slope, one that given the current landscape is one that Selig simply won't even consider and IMHO, one he shouldn't. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    I would not care if Rose went into Cooperstown, and in fact, he should get in.

    But he earned his ban, he knows what he did, and that he is trying to minimize his deeds by saying "all these others guys did bad things, too" does not exonerate him.   That's how 8 year olds justify their behavior...

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingham Hammer. Show Hingham Hammer's posts

    Re: Pete Rose

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to Hingham Hammer's comment:

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    In response to Hingham Hammer's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    I think enough is enough. IMO he's done his penance. He's not even allowed to go to a ballgame as a fan. Meanwhile some former players that were PED users are coaches. It's also clear, despite his mistakes, that he loves the game. When this sham of a commisioner retires (see PEDs) , his successor should reinstate him.  

     




     

     

    He should be in the Hall for what he did on the field as a player.

    Ban him from the game for what he did as a manager.

     

     



           I see the yanks let the last of the "3 bees" out of the hive last night.

     

     

          



    greetings HH

     


    I believe those were ''3 killer bees''

    making betances a reliever produced some pretty good results in the minors this yr

    not so much last night

    not that the error helped him

     



           GM Zac,

     

                 Yes, the "3 killer bees".

                 One left and still time to salvage his career.

                 I was just having a little fun with twm.

                 After nailing the Montero discussions I was pointing to two in a row.

     




     

    Banuelos rehabbing from TJ surgery last off season.

    Only a nitwit would write off Montero this early.

    If the shoe fits wear it.



            "write off Montero this early"

                  Really?

                  A dirty Montero was useless.

                  How good can a clean Montero be?

     

Share