Let's say Pete bet against his team, he did not alter the game of baseball, Barry has. Some have argued that Bonds is a great hitter and steroids does not give you ability to make contact with the ball. With that I agree. But however in his later years it gave him the ability to instead of pop out he could hit it over the fence. That is altering the game.
2007-07-30 08:38:41 · 13 answers · asked by Victoria 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Makes no difference, Rose violated the most sacred of all rules in MLB by gambling on baseball and he accepted a lifetime ban. Bonds is not guilty of anything and would qualify for consideration of anything involving the game after he retires.
2007-07-30 08:44:50 · answer #1 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm amazed at how often this comes up. I'll state the facts again. Pete Rose bet on baseball while an active manager. Pete Rose was banished from the game. Banished players are not eligible to be elected to the HOF.Why are these facts so difficult to understand?
About Bonds - he isn't in the HOF yet, and will not be eligible to be inducted until he has been retired for 5 years. Whether or not he deserves to be there will be the opinion of the voters at that time. Because the HOF and MLB are not affiliated, the only say that MLB has in the matter is the ability to put a player on the permanently ineligible list. Unless Bonds fails a drug test, which is pretty unlikely, he will not be banned from baseball in the manner Rose was. Even if Bonds ends up in jail as a result of the BALCO case, the only way MLB would suspend him permanently would be if they found him to be breaking the rules. And, according to the agreement between the players union and MLB, a player would have to test positive for a banned substance 4 times. While I don't think Barry Bonds is the smartest man in the world, even he wouldn't be stupid enough to get caught 4 times. Do I think he deserves to be in the hall? Right now, no. But there will be at least a 5 year period before that decision is made, and sometimes a few years will change people's opinions. Sadly, he will probably be inducted eventually, but I don't think he is a lock for it, particularly early on in his eligibility.
2007-07-30 17:00:16 · answer #2 · answered by artistictrophy@sbcglobal.net 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
by betting against his own team, that is altering the game because as manager, he can put the people in there that would make the game changed. pete rose deserves to be in the H.O.F. but i think bonds will be voted in on the second or third time. we are starting to see that the voters are denying the steroid suspects with mcguire last year getting only i think 38% of the vote. it should be interesting when bonds in eligible if he makes it in or not.
2007-07-30 15:58:48 · answer #3 · answered by Kenny M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think they should both be in the hof for different reasons
1 pete rose, did he break a rule yes, but the hof is based on career achievments and a players overall"greatness on the field" and i said "on the field" and his achievments and play on the field play is with out a doubt first ballot hall of fame worthy
2 barry bonds, his career achievments and on the field play same as rose ,with out a doubt hof worthy,, that being said
wether he took steroids or not, the fact of the matter is steroids were not illegal at the time, so how did he cheat,do we take out all of the hall of famers whose stats would not be the same because of a rule change, "no" another thing is baseball like no other is built on its long history and hallowed records. and baseball will do anything to protect that..
2007-07-30 15:59:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. What he did was after he was a player. I'm not sure about Bonds because nothing has been proven 100%.
2007-07-30 17:06:49 · answer #5 · answered by Karen L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without getting into the differences in their alleged offenses - Pete Rose agreed to the ban he has been living with, so he effectively admitted betting on baseball.
It has only been alleged, not proven, the Barry is guilty of anything as of this point.
That being said, I believe it's likely he is guilty - but it's not a certainty.
2007-07-30 15:45:33 · answer #6 · answered by PMack 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, more records are held by Ruth than Rose.
Rose bet as a manager. No one shapes the outcome of a game more than the guy who makes the decisions. Are you SURE he did not alter the game? I'm not.
Rose NEVER will belong in the game.
If you have a problem with Bonds being there, take it up with Bud "Gosh, I can't believe it! Player use steroids?" Selig.
2007-07-30 18:20:39 · answer #7 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont believe Bonds should be in the HOF if Rose isnt allowed to be in thier.
Yes he bet on games as a Red but he still had 4,000 hits! You cant just take that away even though he bet games.
2007-07-30 20:55:38 · answer #8 · answered by #1 New York Yankees Fan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
plain and simple. pete rose was actually convicted for betting on games. and he has admitted to betting games on games in which his team was involved in. its yet to be proven if bonds has cheated or not so its all speculation. until viable proof is shown that bonds cheated or he is convicted of using an illegal substance bonds will go in the hall of fame.
2007-07-30 18:14:18 · answer #9 · answered by ohio87 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont wanna get into a Bonds arguement because they get nowhere
however i would like to see Pete Rose inducted, whether tomorow or posthumasly.
all-time career hits leader
aka Mr Hustle
i think the man deserves it for his playing career. we ALLL know that if his gambling as a manager never occured he would have been a first ballot HOF. his playing career is what matters.
LET PETE IN
2007-07-30 15:44:11 · answer #10 · answered by TheSandMan 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋