If McGwire gets into the hall of fame do you think Pete Rose will try and make a statement on his own behalf?

Question

Something to the effect that I never cheated while I was playing the game!!! Like it or not it might be a valid point. What do you all think?

Answer 1

Some will agree that Rose has a valid point but most won't. The fact that he knowingly bet on the game destroyed any chance of him getting into the hall of fame. There is no greater desire in Pete Rose's life than to be elected into the hall of fame. It's what he played for his entire career. It means more to him than his 5 pennants or 3 world championships. I met Pete Rose in Philadelphia as part of a little league home run derby event and I must say I never met a more arrogant self centered individual in my life. He came into the dugout at the Vet and literally blow off the kids around him who stood in awe of him. I will never forget that. The image of a super star making little kids feel like dirt. I think it reflected a microcosm of his life. It was all about him, "Look at me, I'm Pete Rose!". I often thought after that incident that one day his arrogance might come back and bite him in the rear. Well, it did. I have no pity for him and I hope he never gets his ultimate prize. There are many ways to cheat and I think between Rose, McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and many more, they have found them all. However, there has to be a line drawn. The integrity of baseball is at stake and it's up to the sports writers association to maintain it. To elect McGwire into the hall just opens this giant can of worms and I'm sure this is what Rose would like. In effect it loosen the criteria for getting in. It makes his position stronger at least in his own mind and in the mind of his supporters. The bottom line is this, whether the Rose situation is different than the McGwire situation is really not that important. Cheating is cheating no matter how is was done.

Answer 2

I 100% agree with Ozgard and some of the others that gave answers to the same affect, that…

…these are completely different situations, and this is a new precedence with Big Mac and the others that will soon follow (Raffy, Bonds, Giambi, etc.).

How is it different? What Pete did under minded the integrity of the game. Betting on baseball hurts the outcome of a given game. I know a lot of people say “Yeah, but he bet on his own team.” You have to consider what (I believe it was) Peter Gammonds (spelling?) said. With betting on particular games, the games that Pete didn’t bet or bet low amounts were essentially games that he was betting AGAINST his team. Consider the decision as a manager whether or not to use your best reliever and you know you’ve got low money on this game, but big money on the tomorrow’s game, or visa versa. There’s no way that doesn’t impact your judgment and doing what is best for the team. What Pete did was very bad! Although what Big Mac did, or what the court of public opinion says he did, can be considered cheating, it doesn’t under mind intent of playing ball every day. The steroid cheaters did what they did to help with success on the ball-field, and ultimately to help win games for their respective teams. As such, I don’t see the connection at all.

As for Pete coming out and making a statement, I honesty don’t think he’s smart enough to be able to make an intelligent argument for it. He’ll probably just got to the corner shop in Cooperstown like he always does on Induction weekend (or does he still?) and sell autographs.

I do also want to touch on something that Patsgirl said in how the Commissioners are making an example of Pete. I respectfully disagree with you, and say that the Commissioners have been making an example of 8 guys that played for the Whitesox over 85 years ago. Unlike the steroid thing, I do believe there is a connection and precedence set with the Blacksox scandle, which is the main reason why I think Pete isn’t getting in, not that they don’t like him or that they’re trying to make an example of him.

Lastly, I do want to briefly touch on the steroid thing. I believe Jayson Stark of ESPN said it best in his recent article. I’m too cheap to buy the ESPN Inside deal, but his headline (“Mac Debate sparks a sad start”) and first few sentences said it all. “It isn't just because the already-ugly Mark McGwire Debate is going to crash what is supposed to be Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken's party, either. It's because this is only the beginning.” That wasn’t the basis of your question, so I’ll leave it at that.

Answer 3

Rose didn't cheat while playing, but he did knowingly break a long-standing rule while still an active participant in MLB. McGwire, on the other hand, didn't break any rules since there were no restrictions about andro or similar substances at the time.

If you could seperate Rose's playing from his managing, he'd be fine. However, they're connected for many reasons, and unfortunately most because of the fact that he violated one of the most sacrosanct rules.

I should add, by the way, that Big Mac still had an advantage over other players by using andro, even if it wasn't against the rules. My guess is that many writers will feel the same way, and it will be tough for him to make it.

Answer 4

It was never "proven" that McGwire used steroids, andro which is what he used was legal in baseball at the time. Pete Rose is a different story all together he bet on baseball, while we live in a time that forgives and forgets I still believe that Pete Rose will be the person that they make an example of.

Answer 5

Yes, but just remember, Pete Rose will have a statement on his own behalf any time anyone will listen to him. He is spending his life trying to convince people he belongs in the Hall of Fame, in spite of the fact that he gambled when he was a manager and then lied and said he didn't. When the proof was evident, he owned up, but said he never bet on his own team nor did he bet as a player. How can anyone believe him?? He lies and is a gamblaholic.

Chow!!

Answer 6

Let me first say that if McGwire gets into Cooperstown Pete better get his invite "most rickee tick" (as we used to say in the Marines). However, I don't think Mark is going to get voted in. I have seen a number of people with a vote get interviewed about this topic and about 8 out of 10 said "No" to McGwire.

In the case of "Charlie Hustle" his "tell all" book where he states, (CBS/AP) "I bet on baseball while manager of the Cincinnati Reds" probably sealed his fate. In an interview on ESPN he denied that his turn around was a ploy to get the Commissioner to change his ruling. The old "just admit you lied and all is forgiven" trick. But, regardless of his motive for finally coming clean, I don't see Pete going to Cooperstown either.

They will have another thing in common, they'll both be footnotes and trivia answers for eternity.

Answer 7

I don't think Pete Rose or any other great (there! I said it) person acts on the heels of another person's injustice/pitfalls or how it plays out in the media/society. Like always, Rose will think for himself and act in ways that push his own cause, despite the fact that he most likely identifies with McGwire's plight.

Answer 8

I'd let Pete Rose in over Mark McGwire. But I doubt either can get in.

Answer 9

pete rose believes McGwire should be in the hall of fame. he has said that. and no i don't think he will. the world of baseball has heard his case. he will eventually get in.

Answer 10

Yeah he probably will. However he went wrong when he denied gambling on the game. Rose would have been in the h.o.f if he had told the truth in the first place. However Big Mac will not be elected for a few years yet so it wont happen.