Pete Rose back in baseball?

[pokerlover]

What do you think? Will he actually admit to betting on baseball?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0122/1496837.html

[IrishHand]

Which is worse...

(1) Having a disgrace to the game be banned for life while he continues to deny blatantly violating baseball's most sacred rule - thereby ensuring that many of his fans will continue to support him (kinda like those who think OJ was innocent),
or
(2) Having a disgrace to the game be allowed to return fo the game and enter the Hall in exchange for him admitting he blatanly violated baseball's most sacred rule - thereby demonstrating that it's ok to defile the fabric of the game so long as you say you're sorry later on.

I gotta go with #1 on this one.

[andyfox]

So Rose will either be

A) admitting that he lied for thirteen years and is now agreeing to tell the truth to get back into the game; or

B) agreeing to lie now to get back into the game.

One assumes that Rose, even if he admits to betting on baseball, will deny betting on Reds games. How likely is it that an addicted gambler would not bet on the one thing he had the most ability to control?

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/frown.gif ask ray fosse if pete takes the game seriously...pete never bet on baseball, if he had lied and admitted that; he'd be in the hall now...but every coke addict can get 6chances..no questions asked, but because an academic hated pete...the hall of fame is disgraced by not having the best all time player as a member...but overall, i think pete likes the intermittent publicity as it pumps up sales for his signatures...pete rose..honest man...greatest baseball player of all time.... /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[B-Man]

I agree with Andy and Irish on this one.

I don't understand the rationale for letting him back in, just because he is now going to admit he lied for 13 years. So what?

Selig must be doing this to help his image. It will only damage his image further in my eyes.

[olemissgolf]

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame whether he admits to betting on baseball or doesn't. If it could be proven that he bet against the Reds while playing/managing, I would change my opinion.

[Josh W]

Ridiculous. Patently ridiculous. What is the point of having a 'cardinal rule', if violating it has negligible consequence. As it is now, Rose is all over the hall of fame, just not officialy inducted.

I used to be a strong supporter of Rose getting in the hall of fame, but now, I'm not.

The most damaging event ever to any professional sport was the 1919 scandal. Because of that, baseball made clear, in no uncertain terms, that gambling was baseball's public enemy #1.

And Pete Rose is on the verge of admitting to violating that one rule that should not be violated.

Let's pretend for a second that national security was just a game, something to partake in for novelty. If a man admitted to committing treason, then wanted to be appointed to a high ranking office, should he be? Of course not. You don't re-create the most damaging event and get away with it.

Unless, of course, your fortunate to have a commissioner who has track record of bad decisions longer than my....well, it's long. Then maybe you can wizz in the holy water, break the unbreakable rule, lie about it for years, come around to learning that important 2nd grade lesson (tell the truth), and be told "welcome back into our nice little community that you worked to destroy"...

If Nixon were still alive, he should try to get the 2004 Democratic Nomination. It makes about as much sense as Rose getting back into baseball.

Fortunately, for those of us who now enjoy the game of baseball, the fallout of Pete Rose betting wasn't nearly as drastic as the fallout from the "Black Sox Scandal". But what if...

What if the Reds made the playoffs. What if they went to the World Series? Are we to believe that this compulsive gambler, with one of the worlds biggest sporting events, would have just sat back and not had action on the games? No way.

We got lucky that the Reds weren't good. Or Pete may have been successful in destroying baseball.

In all walks of life, there are certain rules that you abide by no matter what. Pete didn't. So he shouldn't be allowed back into that walk of life. No matter what.

Josh

[Clarkmeister]

2 quick thoughts, as I don't have a strong opinion on the subject.

1. I think many Rose supporters feel that because he bet on baseball as a manager, it shouldn't stop his induction as a player. If it were proven he bet as a player, I suspect his support (such as it is) would evaporate in a heartbeat.

2. The Reds were actually pretty damn good when Rose managed. I don't remember for sure, but I suspect they would have made the playoffs a couple of times under the current wildcard system. I am more certain that they finished 2nd like 3 years in a row under the 2 division system.

[Josh W]

I hate it when I make statements that I'm unsure of, and well, I did.

I just remember, about 6 weeks ago, SportsCenter talking about Rose and Selig meeting. Peter Gammons stated that Rose really wanted back into baseball as a coach or manager more than he wanted into the hall. Gammons then said that he was a horrible manager. It was this statement that made me think that the reds were probably a bad team. But to be honest, I really don't know where they finished, and I should have found out before I made the claim that they were bad.

Josh

[Josh W]

They were over .500 every year when he was a manager except 1984 and 1989...they never made the playoffs, but would have under today's wildcard rules.

I still contend that it could have been disasterous if they had made the playoffs. Not that it would have, but it could have, and the possibility wasn't too remote....

http://www.sports-wired.com/mlb/teams/teaminfo.asp?ID=8

Josh