Should his accomplishments as a player be disreguarded?
2007-07-17 18:09:30 · 18 answers · asked by James V 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Yes he should
watch the Mets and padres tonight on Cox Cable. The padres are sponsored by a casino in the San Diego Area.
When I match the Red Sox Mohegian Sun, another casino, is the team sponsor.
So what is the deal with Pete. BB accepts gambling as a revenue source.
2007-07-17 18:18:30 · answer #1 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Only if he buys a ticket He should at least be able to see what could have been .The simple reason is that Rose doesn't meet half of the eligibility requirements.Those annoying little requirements about having good character, integrity and sportsmanship.
The man is a criminal .He repeatedly broke a rule that he was all too familiar with .He broke the rule for the same reasons that all criminals break rules; they think that the rules don't apply to them. Rose found out what all criminals eventually find out ;The rules do apply to them and there are consequences for breaking them.
So no HOF for Petey
2007-07-18 08:57:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Chipmaker is the only answerer so far who understands that Rose can't be inducted - he is ineligible. The question should be whether or not he's allowed to be reinstated.
As for those who compare his gambling to the allegations of steroid use by players, you're missing one thing - there are no current HOFers who ever failed an MLB-mandated steroids test. Rose, on the other hand, had his failings well-documented, and he lied about them for a decade afterwards to boot.
2007-07-18 01:25:00 · answer #3 · answered by Craig S 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I think he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame. He did the crime and has since done his time. How many other MLB or NBA players have done something wrong and it has since passed. Latrell Spreewell choked his coach but he kept playing basketball. Ron Artest and others charged the stands got suspended and continue to play basketball. Daryll Strawberry on numerous occasions was let back into baseball after his problems with drugs. Now we have the steroids issue and they continue to suspend players for a few games and not a lifetime banishment. They are even murderers who have done less time than Pete Rose. Let by gones be by gones and let the voters decide whether he gets in or not.
2007-07-18 03:47:59 · answer #4 · answered by mpjedi520 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
the rules are clear. if you bet on baseball, you are banished for life. it is not as if this were an obscure rule. he knew it was wrong and he did it any way. things would have been easier for him if he had confessed right away. he only confessed when he did because he thought that would get him in. people should move on. there are more pressing matters in this world than whether or not pete rose is let in the hall of fame.
2007-07-18 02:32:08 · answer #5 · answered by rjleclerc 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, he should NOT be inducted into the Hall-of-Fame. he broke the cardinal rule of the game... and he KNEW it... and he LIED about it. He had his chance.
No, his accomplishments should NOT be discounted or disregarded. They were ALL legit and deserve a place and respect within the halls of Cooperstown.
2007-07-18 03:42:37 · answer #6 · answered by baseballfan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They might not be able to test the current HOfers for roids but dammit pete rose deserves it. He is the greatest hitter of all time, his record will last just as long as Joe D's 56 game streak and Cal's consecutive games played. I know he is ineligable but that drunk commish needs to put him in. Bariods gettin in for sure and hell there are plenty of HOfers that are cheats drunks and druggies and there in why not pete...thats crap selig knows it but b/c the roid era saved baseball hes not catchin hell for pete not being in the hall...u suck selig go retire and drown in a bottle of cheap rock gut whiskey
2007-07-18 02:51:17 · answer #7 · answered by big burly 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If he buys a ticket, sure.
As an honoree? He is ineligible. The only way around that is for MLB to reinstate him. MLB is not about to reinstate him unless (a) he is innocent or (b) the term of his expulsion -- "permanent" -- expires.
2007-07-18 01:14:07 · answer #8 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, he should...........................he was a fantastic player during his career, with numerous records. I think that since they found him guilty of gambling while he managed, then fine, ban him from the game, but they still should recognize his career before that.
2007-07-18 08:23:09 · answer #9 · answered by Chris 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
His accomplishments should not be disregarded like he didn't even play. He was a great player who deserves to be in the HOF despite the fact that he gambled when he was a manager. Who cares.
2007-07-18 07:33:47 · answer #10 · answered by amethyst 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋