Why is their any difference between Pete Rose's situation and Barry Bonds?

Question

Pete brought disgrace to the game when he got caught betting on MLB games. Barry, Conseco, Palamero, and Big Mac also brought disgrace to the game with the steroid scandal. If MLB allows Barry into the HOF after he is indicted for purjury. Then why not Pete, and if you don't agree with me just say so, don't do like alot of people are doing and getting down right rude, by saying the question is stupid and shouldn't be asked. It's just a question i would like some input on from other baseball fans. Thank You!!!!!

Answer 1

There's a very essential difference in that only one of them has been proven guilty.

Rose was caught doing something illegal and admitted to it. Bonds, on the other hand, has never failed a drug test or been caught taken banned substances. So, how can you punish someone based on speculation?

I'm not a Bonds fan, but there's still a huge difference between him and the Gambler. If Barry is ever punished for something mandated by MLB, then my feelings would change.

Answer 2

The first, and most obvious difference is that Pete Rose violated baseball rules by gambling, but Barry Bonds did not violate any by taking steroids. Yes, it was illegal, but not against the rules. As for MLB "allowing" Bonds into the Hall of Fame, MLB and the National Baseball Hall of Fame are 2 separate entities. The only way that MLB can have any effect on wether a player gets in or not is by putting him on the "permanently ineligible" list. This is why Pete Rose is not in the hall, and is also why Shoeless Joe Jackson is also not a member.
As of today, Bonds has never tested positive for anything on the MLB banned substance list. Do I think that this means he has not used performance-enhancing drugs? Of course not. I have no doubt in my mind that he has, either steroids, or more likely HGH. As of right now, even if he were to test positive, it would take 4 positive tests to have him banned from the game. My thought would be that he would be smart enough to quit the game rather then get that 4th positive.
Whether or not Bonds belongs in the Hall is really a matter of opinion. The Hall is an honorary thing, you don't automatically qualify by hitting a certain number of home runs or by having so many wins. Players are voted in, and the process is very political. Whether or not Bonds belongs in the Hall is up to the voters, not MLB. I personally don't think he belongs there, and don't think that Rose does either.

Answer 3

Bonds admitted to using the cream and the clear during grand jury testimony. This is fact. These are steroid products, again fact.

Rose bet on baseball- fact. There are rules against gambling for which he is being held accountable- fact.

The difference is one of semantics. Baseball maintains certain rules to preserve the integrity of the game. Baseball history is about statistics and records and the comparison of players of different eras to the players we can watch today. When that is no longer possible a large part of the individual accomplishments of players are lost.

Rose's gambling, while it could have led to worse situations did nothing to scar the game or affect the outcome of individual contests. Bonds and the other 'roid boys, influenced a whole generation of the game. Never before have such a large group of players reached the 500 HR plateau. Bonds is able to challenge Aaron's all time mark only as a result of steroids. Is 500 HR HOF worthy anymore? If not, how long 'til we forget about Mantle et al.

Answer 4

There's a lot of differences.

Rose is established as breaking a baseball rule (and that, one of the REALLY IMPORTANT ones). Bonds, not so.

Rose's known offense(s) include direct contravention of BASEBALL rules. MLB is not an arbiter of federal, state, or local law, nor it is any kind of moral guardian (this note added for all the dotards who somehow think the gambling rule was enacted based upon some moral stance; it was not; grow up). MLB has to be concerned with actions against its own interests, and to which end it has its own rules. These are where Rose's most relevant violations occurred; he gambled on games, including those involving his own team (betting to win or to lose is irrelevant). Bonds is not known to have violated any baseball rules (unless that amphetimines rumor proves true, and even so, the sanctions for speed aren't par with those for gambling, nor should they be). Both of them have been in real legal tangles, but only Rose has been indicted, convicted, and punished.

I do not think Rose ever bet to lose (though this is not important) and conducted his game tactics that way; however, as manager, his actions in trying to win games on which he did have money could have compounded into not having all his resources (healthy, rested players) available for winning games in which he did not have bets riding; which isn't the same thing as trying to lose but delivers the same result. Not saying Rose did this; saying it COULD have happened without intent. What Bonds allegedly did, take Chemicals X, was for the explicit purpose of PLAYING BETTER and WINNING MORE, which really is very much in keeping with the goal of the enterprise. Not saying Bonds did not do some things -- I have no doubts he did -- but the intent was perfectly in keeping with the competitive nature of the game.

None of which has anything to do with the Hall, an entirely separate topic.

2pts for YABQ.

Answer 5

The difference is Pete Rose admitted to betting on baseball. Bonds and Big Mac have never tested positive for steroids. We can assume they did. Maybe they did maybe they didn't, I honestly don't care. If they didn't/don't test positive for any banned substance or admit to taking steroids during their playing careers I don't think they should be banned from Cooperstown. Palmerio and Canseco are different because Jose admitted to it and Raffy tested positive for steroids and I don't think they should be allowed, and probably won't. What Rose did was horrible and unfortunately won't be allowed in the hall. But for Bonds and McGwire or anyone else for that matter, until it is proven or they admit to using a banned substance or that they cheated in any way, I think they should be allowed in.

Answer 6

Pete Rose actually broke the rules and Bonds did not. People want to compare the two but they are vastly different cases. Baseball had no rules against what Bonds supposedly did. Now there are rules against it today (implemented in recent years) so if he got caught today then he should be treated the same. However at this time, like I said, Bonds broke no rules and Pete did! End of Story, NO COMPARISON!

Answer 7

Why is there a difference?

What Pete Rose did was against the rules of the game. In fact it was (and still is!) the number ONE "no no" in the game. Gambling on the game, even on one's own team can effect the integrity of the entire sport!

I think we are living through an example of that right now with the NBA scandel.

On the other hand; Bonds, Canseco, McGwire and even Caminitti may have done something illegal and yet did NOT violate the rules of the game. Palmiero though, was caught AFTER the rules of the game had changed.

Perjury is NOT against the rules of baseball. Gambling on the game, EVEN on your own team is against the rules and had been for 65 years when Rose committed his sin.

Answer 8

The difference is the evidence. If you ask me what Pete did was unforgivable. You just don't do that and he got caught. If you ask me for the steroid users that have tested positive no HOF but Bonds unfortunately never did. Kind of hard to discriminate against one of the best players of all time without proof. sorry but look at the stats.

PS. I don't like Bonds just stating the facts.

Answer 9

Rose admitted to betting on baseball which is in violation of MLB rules. For this action he accepted a life time ban in baseball. Bonds has never tested positive for any banned drugs since the inception of the drug testing policy in 2001 and is in good standing with MLB.

Answer 10

i think Pete Rose should be in the HOF, because him betting on baseball never impaired how he actually played the game...i think he should have just been banned from being affilliated with a ball club (manager, GM, hitting coach etc...)

But barry bonds, I dont think they should count the years that he allegedly used steroids, and if his numbers are still good enough to get into the HOF, then so be it