I've seen a lot of people on this board say something like, "If Bonds gets into the HOF, then Pete Rose should be allowed in as well."
I'm not sure if some of you actually realize what the difference is between what Bonds is accused of doing, and what Rose admitted to doing.
What Bonds is accused of doing, at the most, would land him a 50 game suspension from baseball. And that's if, and only if, he tests positive for steroids, otherwise MLB has no grounds so suspend him. And at this point, there is no "just" reason to deny him a bid into the hall of fame.
Rose certainly has the numbers to get in, but what he did was so bad, he didn't get a slap on the wrist and a 50 game suspension, he got banned for LIFE. Not suspended... Banned. Gambling on the game is the worst thing you can do as a player, coach, owner, umpire, etc. It's worse than taking steroids, far worse. So why is everyone lumping these two together? It's two completely separate issues.
2007-08-09 19:19:26 · 8 answers · asked by wedge47 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Because people here know nothing about what they are talking about. You won't hear that on an educated program. You are right. They are completely irrelevant, but people just think they sound smart when they bring up Pete Rose.
2007-08-09 19:24:18 · answer #1 · answered by johnnydera18 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Gambling as a player, on one's own team, to win, isn't really that bad a thing. The penalties are clear for it - a lifetime ban - but it doesn't really bring up a conflict of interest. Every player should be doing everything he can to win every game, so his interests as a gambler and his responsibilities as a player are the same. Baseball takes a hard line on this to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
What Rose did, though, was to bet on his own team while he was a manager. He bet different amounts on different games, and didn't bet on every game. He never bet on the Reds when Mario Soto was pitching, for example. The manager's job is to get the team to win as many games as possible over the course of the season. This means that sometimes he will save a pitcher for tomorrow, and will rest his stars once in a while. When he's betting different amounts on different games, this does threaten his integrity. He might have chosen to rest his stars more when Soto was pitching, or used up his best relievers the day before Soto pitched, because he knew he wasn't betting on Soto's starts.
So this is why I don't buy the argument that "Rose only bet on his own team to win." Even if that's true (and John Dowd claims that he has some evidence that Rose did bet against his own team, but it wasn't strong enough to put in the Dowd report) what Rose did created conflicts between his interests as a manager and as a gambler.
The worst you can say about Bonds is that he cheated to make himself a better player and help his team win more games. You can say the same about MANY Hall of Famers - Gaylord Perry comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others.
2007-08-10 04:28:02 · answer #2 · answered by Thomas M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are getting some OK answers and some weak ones. I agree with you that they are two separate transgressions and should not be compared as if they are equal. I think they can be compared only because they are players who have been alledged of misdoing.
You raise an interesting point in the comparison of a 50-game suspension vs. banned for life - a strong point in your behalf.
I will take exception with your claim gambling is the worst thing a player can do. It is clearly one of the worst, but I would find it worse to know a player deliberately tried to severely harm another player. Not Roger Clemens hitting Rios in the back, but if a pitcher deliberately throws at a players head with the INTENT to hit them in the head. Or one player taking out another spikes high with the deliberate attempt to harm them severely. I don't think this happens too often in MLB, but it happens in baseball and I think it worse.
But your overall point is well taken
2007-08-10 14:24:23 · answer #3 · answered by Matt G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pete Rose is one of the best players ever and he deserves to be in the hall of fame unlike bonds. Rose deserves to go into the Hall as a player and not as a manager.
2007-08-10 08:43:36 · answer #4 · answered by Jets 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Rose's ineligibility is not "for life".
It is "permanent".
When "permanent" expires, he can be reinstated.
Here, read the agreement which Rose willingly signed. It's not that long, about two typed pages, but the relevant language is in section (a) about 3/4 down. http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/agreement.html
2007-08-10 02:24:41 · answer #5 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's like you say; they don't recognize the difference between the two transgressions.
An angry mind is not a clear thinking mind.
2007-08-10 03:31:55 · answer #6 · answered by harmonv 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just my personal belief, but imho when a player takes steriods they are gambling on the game. They are trying to change the odds.
2007-08-10 10:40:02 · answer #7 · answered by nubiangeek 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
heres a novel idea about pete rose and bonds*.. just forget about them and stop trying to incite arguements... thank you.
2007-08-10 11:34:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋