Barry Bonds in, Pete Rose not?

Question

Now that Barry Bonds has broken the home run record, it is being said that this solidifies his trip to Cooperstown.

Given that this record will always be overshadowed by the possibility of steroid use, is it still fair for Pete Rose to not receive the invitation to Cooperstown based on betting?

I say you either let them both in or keep them both out. To allow Bonds in based on HRs and not Rose is a travesty.

Separating professional from personal is the key. For example, Dennis Rodman was a helluva rebounder, and his off-the-court antics shouldn't take away from his professional accomplishments.

After reading some of these wonderfully insightful comments, I have to insert my opinion. BETTING & DRUG ENHANCEMENT are both cheating. It doesn't matter if you bet on baseball or you cheated on the field with body boosters. While I see the difference in what Rose did to what Bonds has done, cheating is cheating. If DiMaggio, Mantle, Nolan Ryan, or Craig Biggio cheated in any way (betting, drugs), they should be noted as such. We all know Bonds took steroids. How else can you double in size within 10 years? He sure didn't eat Big Macs everyday. You can't hit like that without enhancements. McGwire couldn't do it, Sosa couldn't do it. They cheated and now are ridiculed. Bonds has stayed silent and that silence to me doesn't excuse him from the obvious overwhelming guilt. When he personally testifies, I'll perhaps change my mind. Cheating on the field to me is more damaging than betting. Rose's ability was astonishing, as Bonds. To exclude Rose and include Bonds is awful.

Answer 1

I agree. Somebody got those 4000+ hits, and that somebody was Pete Rose.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Morals.

Answer 2

The answer is simple. Pete Rose broke the rules of Major League Baseball the minute he placed his first bet on a baseball game. On the other hand, you have Barry Bonds, who has never failed a drug test, and has never been found to have broken any rules. I have no doubt in my mind that Bonds was on something, steroids, HGH, whatever, but the bottom line is that since baseball banned those substances and he has been tested, he has been clean. Was what he did unfair and immoral? Absolutely. Was it against the rules of baseball? Not at all.
You are basically comparing apples and oranges. As much as I dislike Bonds, he has not broken any of the rules of MLB. His case and Rose's case have absolutely nothing to do with the other. There are 2 things that will keep Bonds from the Hall of Fame. One would be that he simply does not get enough votes (remember how few McGwire got) and the other would be that he would be ineligible. Bonds has done nothing to this point that will get him banned for life, and while I don't think very highly of him as a person, I doubt he would be so stupid as to do something now that would cause him to be banished from the game. The achievements of Bonds in no way change the facts of what Pete Rose did, and the fact that Pete Rose bet on baseball has nothing to do with Bond's guilt or innocence. The 2 are totally unrelated. To think otherwise is just plain silly.

Answer 3

First, Bonds was a lock to Cooperstown about 6 years ago, before he ever shot up once. He is an incredible player, with or without steriods.

Second, there is a BIG difference between what Rose did and what Bonds allegedly did.

Like it or not, cheating to win is an integral part of baseball's history. The Hall of Fame is filled with players who were caught breaking the rules to their advantage.
Gaylord Perry and Phil Niekro were both caught doctoring baseballs. Ty Cobb wore illegally long and sharp spikes.
Many great hitters are known to have corked their bats.

In reality, what Bonds did is no different. He is being villified because he continues to deny what everyone knows he did and because he isn't a nice guy -- not because of the steroids themselves (after all, nobody is making a fuss about Roger Clemens and the massive change in his head and body over the last 15 years).

What Rose did is very different. He bet on baseball. Therefore, it is very likely that he cheated to lose, not to win.
Even though it has never been proven that he bet against the Reds, it is very likely that he altered his mangerial style to his teams detriment because of the betting. For example, if he had money on a particular game he might overwork his pitcher in that game to get the win thus hurting his next start.

The second piece to the puzzle is the background of the action. Everyone who is associated with baseball knows that there is one unforgivable sin -- betting on the game. Rose chose to blatantly violate this known taboo. He therefore is paying the ultimate price.

What Bonds did is murkier. There wasn't even a steroid testing policy in baseball when he started! It is likely that 30% or more of MLB hitters used steroids at the height of the craze. Barry's actions must be looked at in that light.

If Bud Selig had come out and said many years ago "anyone caught taking steroids would be banned from the game," one could argue Barry may end up there.

That never happened, though.

Answer 4

Why are you making this a black and white issue .I'm black and I'm a Pete Rose Fan,but what he did was against a known law, rule or policy in baseball No gambling,especially on your own team.Pete Rose is GUILTY a court established that he was GUILTY.Barry Bonds case was different first of all steroids in baseball was allowed and Barry did not start that.Jose Canseco and Big Mac was shooting eachother in the a$$ well before Barry's name came up.Furthermore Barry has not been indicted for steroids,baseball has never suspended him why not if he is guilty,The whole think stinks to me,because the bottom line is that baseball is already Tainted to me.Babe Ruth's record should have an asterisks next to it,why?because he did not play against the best,how could he have when Blacks and Latina's where not allowed in the major league what about that.Bonds should make it to Cooperstown,as I believe Rose should make it,or be allowed in.IF HE IS GUILTY IT WILL COME OUT ,IF HE IS NOT GUILTY PEOPLE SHOULD EXCEPT THE RECORD.

Answer 5

Bonds would be a first ballot HOF lock with or without the homerun record, his numbers speak for themselves. Rose violated the most sacred of all baseball rules by gambling on baseball while he was still in the game and will not go to the HOF. The integrity of baseball is everything unless they decide they want to compete with wrestling.

Answer 6

First off Bonds has not been proven guilty of anything! Secondly Bonds did not break THE CARDINAL rule of baseball, you DO NOT BET ON BASEBALL!!! If you let Rose in then Shoeless Joe has to be just in front of him! Bonds is not going in based on HR; he is going in based on 7 MVP awards, a batting title, HR records, Gold Gloves, 40-40, 500-500...and the list goes on and on. All they are saying is that with the HR record they can not deny him. The only way they could is if they could go back in time (get out the flex compacitor) and take blood from him in 1999-2001 and bring it back to today and test it!

Answer 7

I don't know about "fair" but it is the correct state of affairs, primarily because (a) gambling and pharamceuticals are completely unrelated topics and (b) the Hall doesn't care about either one, only a candidate's eligibility within the league where he played.

Any sort of "if X then Rose" should be a hanging offense by now.

Answer 8

Pete Rose broke a rule and admitted to it. There is no positive test for bonds and only circumstantial evidence so you can't keep him out of the Hall.

Answer 9

steroids bulk your muscle and have nothing to do with bat speed. There is 2 seasons in question as to if he was taking steroids. Barry would have been doing them to help his team win. This is however hypothetical considering he was never found guilty!!! Rose on the other hand bet AGAINST his team and had SUB-PAR games for the games in question. I think they're 2 completely different things. With that said I don't think Bonds will have a problem getting into Cooperstown. He deserves a nod for the years and years he put into the game. He never had a 70 HR year like juicer McGuire.

Answer 10

no. Barry Bonds OUT Pete Rose IN. what pete did was off the field what counts is what he did on it. people need to accept that what he did has nothing to do with ENHANCING you ability to play like Barry Bonds has done. Barry bonds is a disgrace to baseball. Pete Rose has a problem that DID NOT AFFECT his ability to play.