Selig shows no sign of thaw in Rose's final year of eligibility

AP via CBS Sportsline ^ | 11-21-05

[highball]

But you get them after the horse is out of the barn.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what's your point? Unless you're willing to give up on the game altogether, I'm not sure what your pessimism accomplishes. They're getting closer to doing the real thing, and we should encourage them to go further, not complain that it took them so long to go this far.

Yes, he bet on baseball and he is being made to suffer for it.

Not if some FReepers have their way. They want to let him off the hook.

[thoughtomator]

There's nothing wrong with holding Rose accountable. His pre-gambling actions were more than enough to earn a place in the HoF. That he later was caught gambling doesn't change the earlier accomplishments - there's no direct link between the HoF-level play and the later gambling. To benefit from gambling he can only do one thing - lose more than he would otherwise. Gambling cannot in any way translate into more hits, which is what should put him in the HoF. If they want to punish him for his later actions, then indicate that in the HoF entry.

[sinkspur]

Unless you're willing to give up on the game altogether, I'm not sure what your pessimism accomplishes.

I have. I watch the playoffs and the World Series. That's it.

I once had season tickets to the Texas Rangers, and enjoyed going. But my disillusionment started with Jose Canseco and his obvious performance enhancements. I couldn't watch as the rest of the nation was enthralled with two roid-heads duking it out in 1998 to break the Babe's record. MLB sat in silence as Barry Bonds bulked up nearly 40 pounds in two seasons.

Haven't been to a game since.

[highball]

There's nothing wrong with holding Rose accountable. His pre-gambling actions were more than enough to earn a place in the HoF. That he later was caught gambling doesn't change the earlier accomplishments - there's no direct link between the HoF-level play and the later gambling.

We can argue the merits of the rule as much as we like. But the fact remains that the rule was in place, Rose knew the rule and the consequences for breaking it, and chose to break the rule anyway.

If we're going to discuss changing the rule, it should not be retroactive. He made his choice, let him live with the known consequences.