U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2014, 12:20 PM
 
698 posts, read 420,826 times
Reputation: 854

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by psurangers11 View Post
Pete Rose not allowed into the Hall of Fame...
That would be at or near the top of my personal Top Ten list as well. Along with no Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, or Shoeless Joe Jackson. And I'm sure Alex Rodriguez is soon enough to be added to the list. The once-hallowed HOF has been reduced to a ridiculous joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2014, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,303 posts, read 18,647,380 times
Reputation: 18792
Quote:
Originally Posted by psurangers11 View Post
Pete Rose not allowed into the Hall of Fame...
.
Strange thinking. Pete Rose thumbing his nose at one of MLB's most importantly stressed rules is less shameful than people deciding not to heap honors upon the rule breaker?

Here you are campaigning on behalf of a man who lied to the nation for ten years about his misconduct and then only confessed when he saw an opportunity to hustle money selling a book.

What happened to Pete Rose was that he finally learned that Pete Rose is not bigger than the sport which brought him his fame and fortune. The reason for the ban was to uphold the rule against gambling on baseball by ML players and managers. Gambling nearly destroyed the sport during the Black Sox era and the rule was put in place so that there was an utterly unambiguous message. Gamble on baseball and you are out of the sport for life, permanently ineligible.

Rose certainly was aware of the rule. Not only is it posted on the walls of every clubhouse in MLB, each Spring a representative from the commissioner's office visits each camp and holds a short meeting where everyone is reminded ...gamble on baseball and you are suspended for life. Pete looked before he leaped, and then he leaped regardless.

So, Pete does it anyway. What would be the message if his suspension were to be lifted? "We didn't really mean it with that rule?" "That rule was intended for lesser players, not stars?"

Far from a shameful event, it speaks well of the integrity of MLB that they would be willing to sacrifice one of their biggest stars in order to sustain such an important rule.

I think that your moral compass may need an adjustment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2014, 01:25 PM
 
698 posts, read 420,826 times
Reputation: 854
Can't count myself as one who is wow'd by the anthems of the choir boys. The moral nets they cast seem to haul in fish very selectively. If Rose is to be kept out, when are we going to start expelling all those who did the same or worse but who got in at a time when nobody knew or cared? Maybe we should give the boot to all those who drank hard liquor and slept with untold numbers of women they were not married to. What sort of example is that to be setting for the youth of America? What we have excluded from the HOF to date are pre-eminently qualified and deserving players who had the misfortune to become the target of some wild-eyed and misguided crusader, whether it was Kenesaw Mountain Landis, A. Bartlett Giamatti, or Allan H. Selig. It won't be Selig of course, but the next guy needs to do something about removing this long-standing black-eye from the face of the game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2014, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,303 posts, read 18,647,380 times
Reputation: 18792
Quote:
Originally Posted by VendorDude View Post
Can't count myself as one who is wow'd by the anthems of the choir boys. The moral nets they cast seem to haul in fish very selectively. If Rose is to be kept out, when are we going to start expelling all those who did the same or worse but who got in at a time when nobody knew or cared? Maybe we should give the boot to all those who drank hard liquor and slept with untold numbers of women they were not married to? What sort of example is that to be setting for the youth of America? What we have excluded from the HOF to date are pre-eminently qualified and deserving players who had the misfortune to become the target of some wild-eyed and misguided crusader, whether it was Kenesaw Mountain Landis, A. Bartlett Giamatti, or Allan H. Selig. It won't be Selig of course, but the next guy needs to do something about removing this long-standing black-eye from the face of the game.
This relativity argument always gets raised and I do not know why, it makes no sense.

If the problem is that in the past something was done incorrectly, the logical solution is not to conclude that because of this, we must continue to do things incorrectly forever into the future. By the reasoning being employed, we could never jail a criminal that we caught if someone can point to a time in the past when someone got away with a crime.

Giamatti was protecting the integrity of the industry, part of the job description for the commissioner. Characterizing him as "wild eyed" or "misguided" is flippancy rather than truth. There was an iron clad rule, Rose violated it beyond any doubts and he got what was due as a consequence. Then he lied to you for ten years about it. That did not bother you?

And you still want to champion this cheap little hustler? You condemn the person who caught the miscreant rather than the miscreant. That makes no sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2014, 03:20 PM
 
698 posts, read 420,826 times
Reputation: 854
Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree. I was never happy with the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, or the conviction of the Scottsboro Boys either. That trend has merely been continued with regard to crusades against the likes of Jackson, Rose, and Bonds. From my perspective, those are houses of cards. They are dogs that just don't hunt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2014, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,303 posts, read 18,647,380 times
Reputation: 18792
Quote:
Originally Posted by VendorDude View Post
Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree. I was never happy with the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, or the conviction of the Scottsboro Boys either. That trend has merely been continued with regard to crusades against the likes of Jackson, Rose, and Bonds. From my perspective, those are houses of cards. They are dogs that just don't hunt.
We have already disagreed, there is no need to reach an agreement to do what we have already done without one.

Also, when you say that, you are supposed to stop arguing. You threw in another commercial for your view, and made another basic error in logic. The cases you listed above were each unique in circumstances and none are related to the others. That innocent women were condemned by a hyper superstitious population in the 17th Century, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Pete Rose deserved to be punished for breaking the rules of his profession.

You do not seem to have an actual argument on Rose's behalf, just a bad attitude toward those who enforce rules whether they were justified in enforcing them or not. All of the ballplayers you list above as persecuted were clearly guilty and the accusations were accurate. It is not persecution when they are guilty, it is justice at work.

Last edited by Grandstander; 04-17-2014 at 05:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 09:41 AM
 
698 posts, read 420,826 times
Reputation: 854
It's hard having your foolishly cherished assumptions challenged, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,303 posts, read 18,647,380 times
Reputation: 18792
Quote:
Originally Posted by VendorDude View Post
It's hard having your foolishly cherished assumptions challenged, isn't it?
Again, characterization but no argument. You provide us with no reasons for your opinions, thus no reason to pay them any attention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top