Posted on 08/23/2014 11:08:25 AM PDT by OL Hickory
By this point, you have made up your own mind, as so many of us have. You are from one of two camps. One is the "hasn't Pete suffered enough? The other is the "Pete got exactly what he deserved"
I occupy the former.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I just always loved him. All he could do was play baseball but he gave it his all.
And you know that how?
I disagree. By today's standard of corruption, Pete Rose is a saint!
Let him in already!
What rule of MLB did George Herman Ruth break repeatedly, then lie about to the Commissioner of Baseball and the public?
When caught in his lies, did Ruth continue to lie to the public?
Did he continue to lie about breaking that rule for 25 years?
If you want Peter Edward Rose to be eligible for the Baseball Hal of Fame, at the very least, don't you want Major League Baseball to first publicly release every scrap of evidence it has against him?
Does that mean that, without Shoeless Joe Jackson, the Hall has a void from that era and Jackson should be put in the Hall of Fame?
Cooperstown contains baseball history and baseball milestones, as well as honoring certain persons who (a) meet the Hall's eligibility standards and (b) are voted in the by BBWA or the Veterans' Committee.
Rose's baseball history and milestones are already in the Hall of Fame. There is no void from that era.
And . . . he hasn't paid the price for gambling. Gambling had a price tag on it, and Rose saw that price tag multiple times almost every day when he was a player or manager. Rule 21d stated the price for gambling on baseball was lifetime suspension.
When someone knows what the price is ahead of time, agrees to the price in writing, and repeatedly lies about the entire transaction, I have little sympathy about enforcing the agreed-upon price.
From Wikipedia(This was all published at the time that this happened):
In 2004, after years of public denial, Rose admitted to betting on baseball and on, but not against, the Reds.
Rose admitted in 2004 that he did bet on baseball. He thought that this would give him a chance to get back into baseball, but baseball only drove the knife deeper...If there was proof that Rose actually managed in an attempt to throw games in order to win bets, I would support his banishment...To date, I am unaware of any such proof...
your asinine statement is pathetic....speaking of miserable excuses...
why...he was at least as good a player as they were and the hall of fame exists to pay tribute to those who excelled at playing baseball
There was never any proof that Shoeless Joe ever did anything to attempt to throw that series. In fact, in an ironic twist, he had HoF numbers for the series...
Oh,just bite it.
it does if you are among the very best to have EVER played the game.....as an aside, do you think he'd be boycotted if he were...........black??
No. Make him eligible, but let the voters for the Hall decide.
Those voters are making sure that the big dopers aren’t getting in: Sosa, Bonds, Clements, etc.
They might decide the same with Rose. Then he’ll wish he were still in that select group with only Shoeless Joe Jackson. I hear more about Shoeless than I ever do about 99% of those in the HOF.
nonsense...odds change and the bookies bet accordingly' I believe that he bet on his team to win every time, and the oddsmakers know exactly how to handle that.
another high class comment from you.....impressive!!
I find it interesting that you seem to identify with losers/liars.
Oh well,if you like your loser you can keep your loser.
I will not respond to any further posts from you.
I agree with you for the most point. The most damning evidence against him, his purported grand jury testimony published in 1920, does not appear in the stenographic record of the grand jury.
Rose's achievements are honored in the Hall of Fame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.