Keep the Ban on Pete Rose

The New York Times ^ | 12/21/2002 (for editions of 12/22/2002)

[thurules]

Learn your facts prior to shooting off your mouth.

[Rodney King]

Good post. You proved my point.

[thurules]

Please explain.

[thurules]

In detail-with facts.
Yep, that's what I thought.

[Rodney King]

Please explain.

Sure. My above post was about how sports turns otherwise rational people into irrational ones. Your post to me was just pure and raw emotion, and added nothing to the thread whatsoever. That, and your belief that Rose is innocent simply because you are a fan of his, is irrational.

[Rodney King]

In detail-with facts.

What facts? About what? About my conjecture that sports causes otherwise rational people to behave irrationaly? It is an opinion which I am more than willing to discuss, but I don't think there has ever been an offical fact documenter on the subject.

Yep, that's what I thought.

What are you talking about? Geez, some people get so worked up when their favorite sports star isn't being worshipped. Chill out. He's just a guy. You don't know him, and what happens to him or his life has no bearing on yours whatsoever. It's nothign to get worked up over. Rose could die tomorrow, or he could be vindicated. Your life would be the same when you wake up.

[judgeandjury]

If a manager bets on his team in one game, and not on his team in the next, his decisions will be affected. He'll burn out his best reliever to win the game he has money on. He'll play a player who should be rested to win the game he has money on.

Pure conjecture on your part

[Rodney King]

Is evidence against Rose what you are looking for? How about this: A scan of a personal check from Pete Rose to his bookie, as well as a scan of his own hand-written gambling notes showing that he bet on baseball, and Rose's phone bill showing calls to the bookie. It took me two seconds to find. Why is it so hard for you all to accept the truth? (see my above note about sports turning otherwise rational people into temporarily irrational ones).

Rule 21 states: Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Now, you have seen the evidence. Do you still cling to your irrational belief that he is innocent just because you are his fan?

[thurules]

Look Rodney,
This is not about my own personal loyalty to a sports hero of my youth. YOU have made the accusation that he is on the same moral plane as that turncoat Pollard.
Please, please, and once more please explain how you made that great leap in "logic".

[beckett]

Keep him banned. This is one of those exceedingly rare occasions when I agree with the NYT.

Rose's conduct in the years since the banning only confirms his guilt. The guy's a slug --- a great baseball player, but a slug nonetheless. Gambling on games by atheletes destroys sport, pure and simple.

Keep him banned.

[Rodney King]

Pure conjecture on your part

So you think it is ok for a manager to bet on his team, as long as, despite that incentive he would have for altering his behavior, there is no rock hard proof that his decisions were influenced by his gambling?

Fascinating. How about the players and managers simply agreeing to abide by Rule 21: That they shall not bet on the game or they will be barred from life? What is so hard to understand about that.

[Calvin Locke]

Pete Rose is a loser. He should have bought a *special* pardon from Clinton when he had the chance. Now he has to gamble that Hitlery or like-ilk gets in.

However, with Selig, *all* will be forgiven. Selig's a moron too, after what he did to the All Star Game.

I haven't cared about MLB since that greed strike. To heck with them all.

[Rodney King]

This is not about my own personal loyalty to a sports hero of my youth. YOU have made the accusation that he is on the same moral plane as that turncoat Pollard. Please, please, and once more please explain how you made that great leap in "logic".

OK, I did not know that is what you are referring to, so I apologize for questioning your rationality.

I did not mean that Rose is in anyway on the same plane as Pollard, just that some of the same silly arguments on his behalf are the same. Namely, that after agreeing to a punishment that puts and end to the "trial", that individual and his supporters then whine 10 years later that there was never any "trial".

[thurules]

I am not trying to flame you RK, but have you ever even read the Dowd "Report"?
They had nothing and neither do you. I will not try to sit here and explain every avenue of Rose's defense. They had nothing and they knew it-that's why they cut the deal. It is too late to go back on it now.

[genxer]

This like asking why a president is not impeached for lying to a Federal Grand Jury and a comment at a private party has a Majority Leader step down.

Some sports just have a higher standard. I vote never to lift the ban. Not for any other reason than he bet on his own team while he had the power to affect the outcome. What a joke.

[judgeandjury]

Without getting into the merits of banning or not banning those individuals, the fact of the matter is that if some guy beats his wife, or smokes crack, or has sex with a sixteen year old girl, he's a bad guy. A scumbag. The law will deal with him, but the integrity of the game is not threatened.

Oh really? Say a friend of a baseball player knows that the player slept with a 16-year-old girl. That friend tells the player that he is going to place a large bet on the next game and that if the player doesn't try his best to throw that game to help his friend win his bet, the friend will inform the police that the player committed statutory rape. Do you feel that the integrity of the game is not threatened in this scenario?

[Ben Bolt]

Gene

I noticed you have yet to reply to the very thread you posted . Where do you stand on this article ?

[Rodney King]

I am not trying to flame you RK,

Thanks, and I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

but have you ever even read the Dowd "Report"? They had nothing and neither do you. I will not try to sit here and explain every avenue of Rose's defense. They had nothing and they knew it-that's why they cut the deal. It is too late to go back on it now.

I haven't read the report, but I can't imagine what Rose would be doing writing a 34,000 dollar check to a bookie if he wasn't gambling. I also can't imagine why he would have agreed to the lifetime ban if he was innocent.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Some players today are as big a joke as Pete ever was, but at least Pete could play!

[judgeandjury]

How about the players and managers simply agreeing to abide by Rule 21: That they shall not bet on the game or they will be barred from life? What is so hard to understand about that.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But do you honestly think that, with all of the other crimes that professional ballplayers get in trouble for committing, that none of them bet on baseball? Or could it be that very few of them get caught betting on baseball? It's not like they're going to advertise what they're doing. Anyway, they could easily have a friend, a relative, their business manager, their agent, or a member of their "posse" place the bet for them.