Should Pete Rose be reinstated and allowed to into the Hall of Fame?

Question

i would like to hear you opinion.

i think he should gambling didnt effect his game like taking steroids or performance inhancing drugs would

Answer 1

yes, tho he did bet, that was when he was a MANAGER, and so he could be inducted just as a player

Answer 2

No. The steroids comparison doesn't wash and as despicable as steroid use may be, it does not make Pete Rose less guilty of violating baseball's cardinal sin.

Ever since the resolution of the 1919 World Series fix investigation, it has been emphtically stated that any association with gambling would result in the individual's exclusion from Major League Baseball. Pete Rose was not sandbagged, he continuously violated a rule he had been made well aware of.

Certainly, while in regular society, gambling is not as egregious a sin as drug use; baseball has a different set of priorities. Participation in gambling taints the integrity of the game. Because sporting contests must be beleived to have legitimate results, they can have no diresct link to gambling.

The argument that Rose never bet against his own team is moot. Unless Rose bet on his team every game, he was sending a signal to those he gambled with there were games where he felt less confident in his team's chances.

What further aggravates the Rose situation is Rose himself. Had Rose admitted he bet on baseball right away and accepted his punishment, he might have been reinstated. Instead, Rose denied he bet on the game; threatened to sue Major League Baseball and allowed supporters to believe his innocence. Only when he could put money in his own pockets in the form of a book did Rose admit to betting on baseball.

The punishment for betting on baseball is a lifetime ban from the game. When Rose's lifetime is over he can be reinstated and voted into the Hall of Fame. This would allow baseball to honor the accomlpishments of a great baseball player without allowing the gambler to have his moment in the sun.

Answer 3

Absolutely not.

Pete Rose was in a place (manager) from which he could very easily manipulate a game. If you don't believe it, then listen to any post-game call-in show, particularly after your team loses. Why didn't the manager call for a hit-and-run here? Why wasn't so-and-so told to steal there? That bunt made no sense! And on and on we go. The answer to those questions, of course, is that you don'd know that the manager did or didn't call for that hit-and-run, or tell that player not steal, etc. Now, do you see how easily a manager can manupulate a game?

Pete Rose was also in debt to the extent that he could not have avoided dealing with some rather nasty-type characters, and it's highly likely that he would have been approached, probably repeatedly, and offered the chance to retire some of his debt if the Reds lost a given game. Let's not forget that in every year that Rose managed the Reds, the best pre-season predictions had them winning their division, and in each of those seasons, they lost be just a couple of games. Are you not yet suspicious?

Let's look further. Rose was in a position to be able to have information about his players to which we could never have been privy. As well, through his agent, his players, scouts, etc, he was in a position to have information about players on other teams that again, you and I would never have been allowed to have.

That all adds up to something that, in the business world, is called insider trading. The SEC locks you up very, very quickly for that one.

Should Pete Rose never be reinstated and allowed into the Hall - absolutely not. This is what Bart Giamatti was referring to when he ansered a question immediately after announcing Rose's banishment from baseball. And please, don't make Giamatti spin in his grave.

Answer 4

NO. For years Pete Rose denied that he gambled on Baseball even though the evidence was there, which proved that he did gamble on the game. If he had come clean about it back then, I would be of a different mind but he chose to lie for the better part of 20 years.
I believe that Shoeless Joe Jackson, of the 1919 Chicago White Sox, has a better chance of being reinstated and allowed into the HOF than Pete Rose. Pete was a fantastic player but he let his competitive nature get the better of him and bet on baseball. He should never see the inside of the Hall of Fame except as a visitor.
That is my opinion.

Answer 5

No

Imagine this scenario...

You take your kid to Cooperstown, young, impressionable, but he's going to do more than hear about the legends of the game.... he'll see them

Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Johnny Bench to name a few.. you read all thier accolades, and then you get to Mr. Rose.... what would it say? 3 World Series, 3 batting titles, 4256 career hits, and at the bottom, as a little sidenote.... Rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball amidst accusations that he gambled on baseball games while playing for and managing the Reds; some accusations claimed that he bet on, and even against, the Reds.

HE ACCEPTED HIS FATE in 1989, now he has to live with it!!!!!! For crying out loud, he pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges in 1990 for gambling (among other things). In 2004 in his book he admitted to betting on baseball. He violated the code of conduct in baseball... He's a cheat.
So my answer is NO,NO, NEVER, EVER ,EVER.....
He doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, if not for the sake of ourselves, then for the sake of generations to come.

And to give him what he wants so he will just go away (to quote an earlier question) .... again, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard... what next give Osama Bin Laden what he wants and maybe he'll go away? If only it were so easy

Answer 6

Yes I think so. It's not like he was throwing games, or starting bad players to lose the game. He just called it how he saw it. Plus Rose was an All-Star at five different positions, an MVP winner, plus a couple of Gold Gloves, not to mention the most 200 hit seasons, the most career at-bats, hits, and games. Rose was a great player, great man, I'm not sure, but it's the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Character/Personality Hall of Fame.

Answer 7

no when u mess up that big, no i'm not talking like some kind of minor traffic voilation no where talking about gambling and losing just to get a couple hundred dollars, think how dissapointing that was as a teammate of his u work all off season and u dedicate your whole life 2 the sport and play your @$$ off every at-bat and every inning u were in the outfield then some @$$hole is so talented at what he does he can basically turn on and off his game and blows it once again so HE can add to his already huge salary he is a selfish, conceded, self-obsorbed,self-centered, greedy, ungenours type of person who should not even be CONSIDERED 4 the hall of fame.

Answer 8

I think in light of the obviously low ethical standards of professional baseball...the teatment of Pete Rose has been inexcusable.

He broke the rules, and he was bad. But, no one ever suggested he threw a game to win a bet, and surely his betting didn't unfairly improve his on field performance. We should let Pete into the Hall of Fame where he belongs.

My only request is that any biographical display of him should tell the whole story...including his gambling problems...and his lengthy banishment from the sport.

Answer 9

Yes. Baseball is not a popularity contest, it's about what you do between the lines. And Pete Rose has hall of fame numbers, you can't argue that.

Answer 10

How do we know it didn't affect his game? He was a manager of a team and gambling on baseball. 100% wrong - then he lied about it. He has the stats, that's for sure, but until he comes completely clean, no way. Come clean, show true remorse and tell the damn truth and yeah, he's in. Otherwise, a sad, sad man.

Answer 11

Yes, he probably should be in the Hall, but his attitude about the whole thing sucks. He continues to hold most of his autograph signings at gambling casinos, like he's thumbing his nose at the system. C'mon Pete! A little contrition goes a long way.