OT--Pete Rose

[Overlycheerful]

I see where one of Ohio's finest, Charlie Hustle himself, has fessed up to betting on baseball.

I'm shocked!

Rose, of course, provided me with many a fine memory in my youth--Reds fan that I was.

I'll never forget him barrelling into Ray Fosse in that All-Star game. What intensity!

Of course, it effectively ended Ray's career. But even that was for the best, as Ray went on to become a world famous choreographer, the genius behind All That Jazz and Chicago, to name but two.

It all reminds me of just how fleeting one's youth is. One day you're a ripening peach; the next, rotting fruit.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Perkythrice said:

I see where one of Ohio's finest, Charlie Hustle himself, has fessed up to betting on baseball.

I'm shocked!

Rose, of course, provided me with many a fine memory in my youth--Reds fan that I was.

I'll never forget him barrelling into Ray Fosse in that All-Star game. What intensity!

Of course, it effectively ended Ray's career. But even that was for the best, as Ray went on to become a world famous choreographer, the genius behind All That Jazz and Chicago, to name but two.

It all reminds me of just how fleeting one's youth is. One day you're a ripening peach; the next, rotting fruit.

You don't really have to be. You can chose to not be a lying sleazeball (and a felon, as well). Too bad Pete didn't make that choice.

[gobears]

I assume that was a joke about Ray Fosse going on to a career in choreography!!!! That was Bob Fosse of course.

Ray Fosse is here in the Bay ARea and a premier sports TV broadcaster and commentator. Super guy.... does a super job.

[Wolfgang]

I'm not a Pete Rose fan, and hell, I'm not even a baseball fan. I wouldn't know an infield double if it hit me in the face with a shovel.

But, there's nothing wrong with gambling or betting. We do it all the time. When we run a yellow light, we're betting that it won't turn red before we cross that intersection or that there's no cop around to catch you. When we put money in that stock or mutual fund, we're speculating that we won't lose it all.

As long as people understand that casino gambling and sports betting are designed so that the house almost always wins, it's not a problem to me. Except blackjack and a few other games, the player has very little advantage over the house. Whenever I got to Vegas, I play blackjack and my only goal is to win enough to cover the cost of my trip. Of course, I can afford the trip myself, but it's just fun to play this way.

So what if Rose bet on baseball? As long as he didn't let it interfere with his play on the field and impair his judgment, then I have no problems with it. If, however, there are conflict of interest issues, there may be a problem.

There's a pretty good movie on baseball and betting. It's called "Eight Men Out" and it stars, I believe, John Cusack. An excellent movie. Many of the guys bet on baseball, including the playoff games they played, but they could never prove that they "threw" the games. Their stats were incredible.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Wolfgang said:

So what if Rose bet on baseball? As long as he didn't let it interfere with his play on the field and impair his judgment, then I have no problems with it.

How do you know it didn't interfere with his play or affect his judgement? You have a standard that is impossible to enforce. Hence, MLB has made it easy on themselves: absolutely none is allowed.

The rules are clear, and they are actually posted on the clubhouse walls for all to see. Rose still did it. Apparently, the rules don't apply?

And the absolute stance by MLB is not unreasonable, nor uncommon. Remember the ABSCAM thing, where agents dressed up as Arabs bribed US congressmen? There is no indication that a single congressman changed their vote on anything because of the bribe. However, everyone of them was convicted, regardless. It does not matter whether the bribe made any difference at all.

There's a pretty good movie on baseball and betting. It's called "Eight Men Out" and it stars, I believe, John Cusack. An excellent movie. Many of the guys bet on baseball, including the playoff games they played, but they could never prove that they "threw" the games. Their stats were incredible.

Eight Men Out is a nice movie, but, like JFK, played a little fast and loose with the facts.

Is there any proof that Joe Jackson helped throw the games? You say the stats were "incredible." Unfortunately, it's not true. At least for the games that were fixed. In those games, Joe Jackson's stats were exceedingly unimpressive. But why worry about the stats when Jackson admitted that 1) he was paid to throw the games (although they never got all the money they were promised), and 2) he admitted that he didn't try as hard in the games they threw.

That's right. He friggin ADMITTED that he helped throw the games. So much for those incredible stats, eh?

[LuckyVB]

"Eight Men Out" also stars Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe. And Pablo is exactly right. Shoeless Joe's stats were average, at best, in the games that were fixed.

Rose knew the rules. No betting on baseball. His attitude is typical of some people. They think they are above the rules.

PS Wolfgang, I also love to go to Las Vegas. As with most of us, my goal is to pay for my trip. Like you, I can afford to go anyway, but it gives me a goal to try to achieve.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

LuckyVB said:

Rose knew the rules. No betting on baseball. His attitude is typical of some people. They think they are above the rules.

Oh, but Rose claims he doesn't think he is above the rules. Odd, considering the fact that the reason he claims he didn't admit his guilt earlier was because he thought the penalty was too harsh.

Actually, it's worse than that. He also claims that he didn't admit it earlier because it wouldn't do him any good. Apparently, honesty only seems worthwhile when it does him some good, like he thinks it will now. If he didn't think that this would get him reinstated, he would still be lying about it. It's all about him. Read his comments about how he has suffered for the last 15 years. The poor victim. No mention about how baseball fans have suffered over the time because of what he did, or how many are suffering now to learn that he has been lying for 15 years. In fact, the one thing missing from all of it is any contrition at all. He has never apologized to MLB, to John Dowd (who he has repeatedly criticized), or, most importantly to baseball fans. The only people to whom he has said "I'm sorry" is his family, and that only because he still hasn't gotten into the hall of fame.

For 15 years, the slime 1) lied about whether he bet on baseball, 2) attacked those who provided a mountain of evidence that he did, and 3) claimed that he could never get a fair shake from the commissioner.

But now, after 15 years of denials he turns around with an unapologetic admission of guilt, completely vindicating Dowd's conclusions, and suddenly expects to be given lineancy in his punishment (the mandatory punishment for betting on your own team (for or against) is permanent ban)?

Sorry, dude, early parole comes after a time of good behavior. We don't forget 15 years of whining, complaining, and denial of guilt just because you act all nice in front of the parole board.

The only reason he is admitting it is because it might help him get reinstated. Same old Pete Rose, doing it only for himself. He's not doing it because he owes the fans or baseball the truth, or wants to finally be honest. But for him.

I was a big fan of Rose the player. Over the years, I lost a lot of respect for Rose the person. This "admission" has pretty much put me over the top. The guy's a total slimball.

Of course, being a slimeball is not grounds for keeping anyone out of baseball. However, violating MLB Rule 21(d) is. And he has admitted to doing so. Adios from MLB.

It should be noted that HOF eligibility is a separate issue from MLB eligibility. The HOF could allow him to be considered, if they wanted to. But I gotta say, I don't see the HOF opening it's doors anytime soon to someone who is permanently banned. For one thing, there has been a sizable faction of current HOFers who have strongly objected to having Rose inducted. Some are somewhat supportive, but some are vehemently against.

[LuckyVB]

Do you think of HOF would change it's mind if Selig lifted the ban on Rose. Selig (almost a bigger slime than Rose) has hinted that he might. IMHO, the only reason Selig is even talking about the subject is because he thinks it would help his popularity as commissioner.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

LuckyVB said:

Do you think of HOF would change it's mind if Selig lifted the ban on Rose. Selig (almost a bigger slime than Rose) has hinted that he might. IMHO, the only reason Selig is even talking about the subject is because he thinks it would help his popularity as commissioner.

There's a difference between Selig and Rose. Selig strikes me as more clueless than anything else. He goes along with what he thinks people want because he can't come up with a coherent thought of his own. Sure, he lied to congress in the 1994 testimony, but I don't it was a deliberate lie, he just didn't know any better. And his "I can attest that 3 or 4 teams will go bankrupt if this season is played under the old CBA" testimony was something he probably even believed. It was incredibly stupid to think that it would be true in the first place, but I don't rule out stupidity with Selig. Granted, Selig has gotten the players to bend over backwards and take it good in recent negotiations, greatly benefiting the owners while pretending to be doing it in the "best interests of baseball." I don't agree, but hey, the players agreed to the deal at the end, so they can't really complain.

But with Rose, he knew he had bet on baseball, and flat out lied. He looked in the camera and told Jim Gray he didn't do it. He claimed to be the victim, when all along he was the guilty one. OTOH, that aspect isn't so removed from the way Bud Selig has acted on behalf of the owners, so you have a point. In the end, I'd say it takes a pretty low life to make Bud Selig come out looking like a good guy. Pete Rose might be that guy (the former umpire union says, "Hello" as well)

As for Pete and the HOF, it's not clear what will happen. IF Selig reinstates Rose, I think the HOF will make him eligible. However, from what I've seen, this Rose admission has so far not been very smooth. People are talking about it, but the baseball fans that I have interacted with have been exceedingly cool. The only real support I've seen is from people who have been strong supporters through the 15 years, and the marginal fans (e.g. Wolfgang) who really don't know a lot about the situation. I haven't heard too manyl hardcore baseball fans who have been all that sympathetic. I think they are the ones who feel used, or shat upon, and aren't too happy about it.

So if Rose is reinstated and the HOF makes him eligible, how will the HOF voters respond? It's possible that they may be very cool to his induction, especially given his admission of guilt. He's only got two years of eligibility left. That's not a lot of chance for opinions to fade. OTOH, he might get the support. Personally, I can't imagine him getting in on the first time around. The second is going to be closer, and probably will succeed. By then, the current members of the HOF who are opposed will have time to see that it is being handled in a fair process.

OTOH, if I were commish, I wouldn't let the dork back into MLB. Rule 21(d) him. But I don't see Bud doing it.

[Wolfgang]

Hey, I'm not even a marginal fan. I know nothing of the situation because I don't follow it. When Peter Rose (I can call him Peter, right?) is on TV, I change the channel.

I'm neither supporting him nor against him because I simply don't care. I was talking about gambling and betting, in the abstract. I could care less whether he makes it in the Hall of Fame or ends up in prison.

All I ask is that Pablo stop calling people " dude."

"Eight Men Out" was still a great movie. Didn't Ray Liotta play Shoeless Joe in "Field of Dreams"?

[Overlycheerful]

Ray Liotta was the psychopath in Wild Thing. Melanie Griffith and Charlie Daniels. He's also been a psychopath in numerous other films, such as Psycho. (He was Norman Bates and Mrs. Bates. VERY good as the psycho in Fear Strikes Out.)

He was NOT in Eight Men Out. That was whatshisname who played Joe.

Yes, Ray Fosse was the choreographer. Roy Scheider played him in All That Jazz. He'd dead now. Ray, not Roy.

Sarah Brightman is his ex-wife.

Still, Bull Durham is the best baseball flick. Harold Robbins was terrific.

[Overlycheerful]

D.B. Sweeney.

[TheSantaBarbarian]

Pablo said:

You don't really have to be. You can chose to not be a lying sleazeball (and a felon, as well). Too bad Pete didn't make that choice.

The truth is that you can be a rapist or a drug dealer/addict and get into the hall of fame. It seems pretty hypocritical to single out gambling.

[Wolfgang]

Perkythrice said:

Ray Liotta was the psychopath in Wild Thing. Melanie Griffith and Charlie Daniels. He's also been a psychopath in numerous other films, such as Psycho. (He was Norman Bates and Mrs. Bates. VERY good as the psycho in Fear Strikes Out.)

He was NOT in Eight Men Out. That was whatshisname who played Joe.

Yes, Ray Fosse was the choreographer. Roy Scheider played him in All That Jazz. He'd dead now. Ray, not Roy.

Sarah Brightman is his ex-wife.

Still, Bull Durham is the best baseball flick. Harold Robbins was terrific.

I know you were kidding.

[Wolfgang]

TheSantaBarbarian said:

The truth is that you can be a rapist or a drug dealer/addict and get into the hall of fame. It seems pretty hypocritical to single out gambling.

Just let Peter in and be done with it. He'll be among other Hall of Famers who gambled, cheated, raped, murdered, stole, and dealt.