Would You Lift The Ban On Pete Rose?

Question

Why or why not?

Answer 1

No because there is one rule in baseball that is the death penalty. It is betting on baseball. Pete Rose broke the rule he knew existed.

Sure, baseball and the Hall of Fame include cheaters like Gaylord Perry and will include Barry Bonds. However, the death penalty in baseball is there to show the great importance in holding the integrity of the game, and that the players and games are being played to win. It has nothing to do with whether he cheated or not.

I agree with the above people on Shoeless Joe Jackson. There was much less evidence that he cheated and yet he is banned for life from baseball and the Hall of Fame. It has nothing to do with forgiveness and repentance.

Of any rule, this rule must be maintained or it does no good at having it at all, and we can never be sure that players aren't betting and throwing games.

Answer 2

Yes and no
Rose has 2 bans.
1st from MLB I would not lift this ban so he could get another job in baseball.

2nd the Hall of Fame has also placed a rule (Pete Rose Rule) stating that no player serving a lifetime ban could be on the ballots to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The reason Shoeless Joe is not in was because the BBWAA never voted him in the had the right to though. I would lift the ban with the Hall for 2 reasons without question he deserves to be there but if you let him in now it will take away 20-40% of his yearly income since the controversy would be over. He gets all his money from appearances and once he is in he will get a huge amount of appearances but within 2 years it will dwindle significantly down from where he is now. Pete has more to gain not being in the Hall until after he is dead.

And for anyone that questions the Hall of Fame ban here you go.

After Rose's ban was instated, the Baseball Hall of Fame had specifically stated that individuals who are banned from the sport are ineligible for induction; previously, those who were banned (most notably, Shoeless Joe Jackson) had been excluded by informal agreement among voters. The issue of his possible re-instatement and election to the Hall of Fame remains a contentious one throughout baseball.

Answer 3

I would lift the ban on Pete Rose. Personally he has finally owned up to his mistakes- it has been a long time for his punishment, and honestly he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. There are countless other atheletes that are getting small punishments for taking drugs/doping etc. At what point do we judge some of these cases differantly then others? I believe Rose screwed up, but now I think he deserves a little forgiveness.

Answer 4

No. I am a Pete Rose fan for the way he played the game, but there are some things you just do not do. When all is said and done, your honesty, integrity, and your name is all you have. Once you lose that, you are nothing. Saying you are "sorry" are words and why would you believe a confessed gambler. Pete sold his soul for gambling. You cannot allow that element in or around Baseball or any sport. No one should give up on Pete Rose the person, but his Baseball days are over. Some mistakes cannot be wiped out with a "sorry".

Answer 5

Fay Vincent is ideal about this because Pete Rose is banned from baseball for life that the guidelines should be both enforced or reinstate him by the present baseball commissioner Bud Selig yet Pete Rose has been captivating this being banned from baseball for life in view that Bud Selig took over because the commissioner and the attraction has been sitting on Seligs table for some years now

Answer 6

I would lift the ban. But not as long as he is alive. It is a LIFE TIME ban, there is nothing in baseballs rules that say it is to last forever.

The rule states that anyone associated with gambling shall be banned for life from Major League Baseball. Pete Rose broke this rule. So he was banned for life.

Again there is nothing in the rule that says it is to last forever. So after Pete Rose is dead I would lift the ban. I would also lift the bans on the 1919 Black Sox for this same reason.

Answer 7

Yes, I would have to go by the record of Pete Rose. His stats and record prove that he should be in the Hall of Fame. Look at some of the ones that are in this HOF-----racists, womanizers, gamblers, drunks and so on and so on. Yet they made it. Yes, Pete did gamble, but he also gambled publically. You could see him at the horse races quite often and yes I do know that he had several bookies and so forth, so what! It has to be the stats to be in the HOF and with that he has made it.

Answer 8

No, it is a PRIVILEGE to be in the Hall of Fame. Not a right. He can be known as the best player to not be in the Hall of Fame, there's nothing wrong with that. And along the same lines, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro don't belong in it either. Let these names be a lesson to future players: if you compromise the integrity of the game, even if you were great, you will have to pay the consequences.

Answer 9

Yes. Baseball history, up to and including today, is full of irreparable folks who have done everything from committing murder (Cobb) to cheating with drugs (too many to list). While despicable does not take away from their on-field accomplishments, unfortunately. I may not wish to socialize or associate with Pete Rose but on the field he was a hall of fame player.

Answer 10

Yes. I've listened to him speak on ESPN several times and in interviews. I do wonder about his remorsefulness and the fact he's working in Vegas now, but I think he's finally owned up to what he's done. Its time to partially lift the ban from baseball, but I would still wait another 10 years to induct him into the hall of fame. however, I absolutely believe that Rose should be inducted into the hall of fame.