The Evil Genius Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Looks like some interest is brewing up again... I am kind of torn on this one.... I am a Reds fan and was a huge Pete Rose fan...but if he bet on baseball AND directly impacted the way games ended cause of his betting...then no I dont think he should be in the Hall of Fame. I guess he will have to admit his indiscretions before he becomes eligible... I was at that SF Giants game during the World Series and was glad that Petey Hustle got the loud ovation. Report: Rose, Selig Discuss Reinstatement 28 minutes ago Add Sports - Reuters to My Yahoo! MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Pete Rose met baseball commissioner Bud Selig two weeks ago to discuss his possible reinstatement to the game, ESPN's Web site reported Tuesday. The issue of whether Rose will be reinstated or regain eligibility for Hall of Fame induction had not been determined, sources close to the situation told ESPN.com. The meeting came 13 years after Rose, then manager of the Cincinnati Reds (news), agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball following an investigation into his gambling. "There have been a number of stories reporting alleged conversations or meetings between commissioner Selig and Pete Rose," Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said in a statement Tuesday. "Pete Rose applied for reinstatement to commissioner Selig several years ago and that application has been pending since that time. Given the pendency of the application for reinstatement, neither the commissioner or anyone in our office will comment on the Pete Rose matter further." Rose, baseball's career hits leader and a lock for the Hall of Fame had he not been banned from baseball, applied for reinstatement in 1997. However, Selig refused to rule on the matter, saying he had not seen any evidence that would make him alter the lifetime ban. Selig is expected to insist that Rose admits he bet on baseball -- something he has never done -- before he would be reinstated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 ask yourself this. Does his on field deeds outweigh his off-field ones? Should it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 In this particular case, where his off-field deeds affected the intergrity of the game, I think it does matter. ... or I would if I gave a crap about baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 He's the greatest hitter of alltime and played every play at 100 percent. As long as he never bet AGAINST his own team ( a fact even the commissioner admitted to) his gambling shouldn't prevent him from induction into the hall of fame. His stats speak for themselves. Add to that the "deal" he made with commissioner was a lifetime ban that was to be lifted after 1 year. This is indisputible. The death of the commish should not mean his deals are all of a sudden up for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 As long as he never bet AGAINST his own team ( a fact even the commissioner admitted to) his gambling shouldn't prevent him from induction into the hall of fame. as long as this is the case, he deserves to be in the hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 Is OJ in the Hall of Fame? What's worse ... gambling or double-murder? He deserves to be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 MOST OVER-HYPED NON-ISSUE OF ALL TIME!* *donking promotions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 Uh guys, he did bet on the Reds. They have the proof in the Dowd report. Copies of betting slips. He should be in the hall but there should be an asterik noting that he bet on baseball, including his own team, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 As long as he didnt bet AGAINST the Reds (something the commissioner admitted). He belongs. I bet on my golf foursome in calcuttas all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 If he only bet on his own team, there was never a conflict of interest. As a result, I don't see BAseball being hurt. It's like a self made incentive contract to do one's job well. He did his job well enoug hto be in the HOF, and it's a shame he isn't there already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 as a player- yes as a manager- no He did not bet on baseball when he played, but did as a manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Kilmer according to Dowd he did bet against the Reds. http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1212/1475769.html Dowd: Evidence pointed to Rose bets against Reds -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ESPN.com news services John Dowd, hired to investigate Pete Rose's gambling habits 13 years ago for then-baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti, said that if the investigation would have continued a little longer it would have shown the all-time hits leader not only bet on Reds games, but actually bet against the team he was managing. Dowd's comments came in a lengthy telephone interview with the New York Post and were published in Thursday's editions. Even more stunning was Dowd, a Washington D.C.-based lawyer, telling the newspaper that he has been told that part of Rose's possible reinstatement agreement would make him manager of the Reds again. Dowd, who investigated Rose for commissioners Peter Ueberroth and Giamatti in 1989, said his investigation was "close" to showing that Rose also bet against the Reds, but that time constraints prevented its inclusion in the report. The official Dowd Report says "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds." When asked if he thought Rose gambled against the Reds, Dowd was quoted as saying, "I think that is probably right." Dowd said Rose did not bet on the Reds whenever two pitchers, including Mario Soto, started, which "sent a message through the gambling community that the Reds can't win" on those days. Neither Roger Greene, Rose's agent, nor Roger Makley, his attorney, returned the newspaper's phone calls Wednesday. Commissioner Bud Selig refused comment on any issue involving Rose, including if there was an understanding Rose would become manager of the Reds again if he is reinstated. "A person called me (Tuesday) and said he had a conversation two weeks ago with Rose in which Rose said he sat with Selig and they came to the agreement if (Rose) made the proper admissions, he would manage the Reds again," Dowd told the Post. "(The Reds) want to get rid of (manager Bob) Boone and bring in Rose as manager." Reds chief operating officer John Allen, who extended Boone's contract through 2003, said the team hasn't considered the possibility. "Bob Boone is our manager," Allen said Wednesday. "We've had no discussions with Pete Rose or Major League Baseball about what happens if he does get reinstated." Allen told the Post if Rose were reinstated he could imagine his organization asking Rose to come to spring training as a special instructor as it does with other former Reds greats such as Johnny Bench. News broke this week that Rose and Selig met secretly in Milwaukee on Nov. 25 and have been exchanging draft proposals that could end his banishment from baseball. During both Dowd's investigation into whether he bet on baseball as manager of the Reds from 1984-89 and in the aftermath of Aug. 23, 1989 when he signed an agreement for a lifetime ban, Rose has steadfastly denied betting on baseball. Nothing has been agreed to at this point -- including whether or not Rose will be reinstated or regain eligibility for Hall of Fame induction -- and while any potential agreement could still fall apart, it's conceivable a deal could be reached by sometime next month, sources have told ESPN.com's Jayson Stark. Negotiations are still ongoing on the terms of exactly what Rose will be asked by Selig to admit to before he is reinstated. In order to satisfy constituents who are opposed to Rose's reinstatement, Selig is said to be firm in his conviction that Rose has to admit, in some form, that he bet on baseball. Among his litany of problems with Rose, Dowd told the Post, is that he has seen no evidence over the past 13 years that Rose "reconfigured his life" as Giamatti asked the baseball great to do at the time of his banishment. Thus, Dowd sees no reason to make Rose the first player ever allowed back from the permanently ineligible list. "It sends a powerful, powerful, powerful message that if you cross the Rule 21 (gambling on baseball) line, you're not getting back in, baby," Dowd was quoted as saying about keeping Rose out. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Well, it doesnt really say that. It says given more time he MAY have found such evidence. Giamatti said in at least 2 interviews (a special on the case showed both) that he didnt think Rose bet against his team. If he did bet AGAINST the Reds, I dont htink he belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Y Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Pete Rose definitely belongs in the hall of fame.:notworthy What he did was wrong:shootinth , but does that take away from the fact that he was one of the greatest ever. They should be able to set a league wide mandate, Pete Rose is allowed back in baseball only for HOF purposes. He is not to be hired by a team for coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.