Even though many people are arguing that nothing should be done to many players records because there was no policy against steroid use pre-2002, what they fail to realize is that HGH and many other performance-enhancing drugs and steroids used by many of the players are illegal in the US and they are illegal for consumption and distribution. So, at least I think, that spending a career, either before or after the implementing of the steroid policy, dealing with illegal substances is a whole lot worse than placing bets on games you are not involved in.
2007-12-24 05:34:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Apples and oranges.
There was, is, and will always be a rule in baseball that specifically says that gambling on baseball carries a lifetime ban. That's undisputed. And there was tons of evidence that he did that, and he eventually admitted it. Game over.
The steroid scandal has absolutely tarnished the game. No question. But a gambling scandal is the one thing that can bring a sport completely down forever. If the fans don't believe that the games are being played on the up and up, and that games could be being fixed, then it's no more than pro wrestling. It's a show. The steroid guys may be cheating, but at least they're all trying to win. Once gambling gets a hold of guys, no pun intended -- all bets are off.
2007-12-24 03:42:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by KCbus 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The problem is that when Rose was gambling, it was illegal and the period most of the star athletes admit to or have allegations against them it wasn't "illegal". We all know morally it is wrong and very dangerous, but Baseball didn't have any rules against it. Therefore they can't be treated the same. Unfortunately, whatever is done or not done, the whole era will be "marked" with an asterisk in fans minds. What record is clean now? And now it appears to be turning into a bit of a witch hunt. Anyone can be accused and most will believe the accusation, proof or not. However, those players can't be banned from baseball since legally, they didn't do anything wrong.
2007-12-24 03:39:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by kelowna42 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
First I don't know where you got the idea that he was banned because he was gambling against his team, his bets that I have heard was that they were for his team, and to win. But that is a big no-no in baseball and what is worse that he was caught. Bu even if he admited that he was wrong, that didn't stop himn from getting a lifetime ban, that will not be removed, even for him to be elgible for the hall of fame, but I would have to wonder what would have happened, if he was already in the Hall of Fame, first and he was caught gambling.
2007-12-25 14:09:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by staggmovie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The penalty has already been established per the MLB and Players Union agreement. It is a fifteen day suspension for the first offense but only if the player tested positive on a drug test after the implementation of the policy in 2002. For many of the players on the list their activity goes back before the implementation of the testing in which case nothing will happen to them. As far as Pete Rose is concerned, he accepted a life time ban from baseball and his future has been established.
2007-12-24 05:06:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Frizzer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Pete Rose admitted that he bet on baseball for his team to win. However, I do not feel that influenced his accomplishments in anyway and I feel he should be admitted into the HOF. The Steroid users are a whole different mess. Do we eliminate a whole era of baseball because we are not sure who used them and who did not?How many players were really involved,and how many took them with full knowledge of the trainer,owner, manager and GM. I say base the vote solely on the statistics. You still needed a lot of talent to be successful in the game. Look at the number of admitted steroid users who had little success in their careers.
2007-12-24 05:03:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Joel M 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately all high profile people are always judged in the court of public opinion. Most people like the fact that the rich and famous are somehow doing it illegally. Most of the time they do it through hard work. But every now and then someone like Rose or Bonds comes along and with them comes unanswered questions about their integrity.
Those of us who have never made that kind of money or had those types of skills sit back and look at their turmoil. The fact is that most of us never had the guts to dedicate ourselves to achieving what would seem unreachable goals.
In a way we look at them with contempt and jealousy only to realize that we have ourselves to blame for never reaching for that star. So when one of them falls we secretly smile because when they fail it doesn't make our failures look so bad.
We do ourselves a disservice when we point fingers because if they fall from grace it only makes our unremarkable lives seem just that much more unremarkable.
Rules are broken and people pay the price all of the time. This is no different. It's just that we all know about Rose but we don't know about John Q Public down the street who might have done something worse!
Proof, hard evidence, doesn't seem to be the order of the day. In today's society we are always "guilty" until proven "innocent". You have to prove the guilt before enforcing any established penalty.
2007-12-24 04:01:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by The Mick 7 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The games that he did not place a bet, he was in effect betting against the Reds. I'm an old guy. Pete was one of my boyhood idols. But he proved himself to be a sleazeball. Not to mention thet he lied about his gambling for 12 years. It pains me to say that Pete's not going to the Hall, nor should he.
2007-12-24 05:31:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Lets see , Pete Rose was caught gambling , so what should be done about steroids ? Do you suppose nobody would use steroids if Pete hadn't gambled ?
2007-12-24 03:50:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you're going to use Rose as the standard, I guess the punishments should be whatever the steroid users agree to. What Rose and his supporters seem to forget is that he agreed to the ban. It wasn't something that was unilaterally imposed on him.
2007-12-24 04:56:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋