Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Harsh

Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?

Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?

    • Yes
      53
    • No
      54


Recommended Posts

I'm sorry. Researching it, it appears that the "healing effect" is not proven medically either. My apologies.

HGH hasn't been proven to be helpful at all in terms of muscle growth or quicker healing. When people bring that up as a reason to hate a player, I can't help but laugh at the ignorance.

Anabolic steroids however, absolutely do help build muscle. It stands to reason that players will see a gain of some sort on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry. Researching it, it appears that the "healing effect" is not proven medically either. My apologies.

"Positive" effects of steroids:

- proliferate protein synthesis within cells, leading to growth of tissue

- reduce recovery time (which also applies to tissue reparation and muscle growth, as well as injuries)

- fat loss

- can target specific muscles by location of injection, leading to isolated rapid growth

- prevent muscle waste (a phenomenon known as "aging," among other things)

- intensified levels of the "reward system" that the brain controls, meaning one is more inclined to use them to keep getting that feeling of pleasure

Here's some links because, you know, I can actually support my argument.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/11627/...f-Steroids.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P...?tool=pmcentrez

http://rphr.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/57/1/411

So what about the expedited muscle regeneration (aka healing) not being proven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete Rose should replace Bud Selig.

agree 100%

Pete Rose is no worse then David Stern. I actually think they're alot alike...

bud selig should be running around milw park in those sausage outfits, not running MLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me if this has been mentioned and I missed it...

...but isn't Mark McGwire a hitting coach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players using substances not proven to help in baseball activities (other than being able to recover from injuries quicker) in order to help be a more competitive player (while possibly hurting only themselves, provided they ignore their cholesterol levels instead of having their dosages managed by a physician) versus a guy whose very actions could undermine the competitiveness of the game, turning it into a glorified WWF match? Yeah, I'm good with the latter getting ostracized while the former get off without anything.

I think you are grasping as straws here to justify steroid use but if we go past that point I still dont think your argument holds water. You are saying that we know that steroid users broke the rules of the game but because we don't know for 100% that steroids have an effect (and remember how much stricter the scientific standards are than the standards Rose is held too) on the results on the field their actions aren't as condemnable. But isn't this a a good parallel for Rose actions. We know he gambled and that is against the rules, but we don't know if they changed his play on the field (and remember how strict those scientific standards are, seems nearly impossible).

I admit that I am not the most informed on Rose so I ask this to those who are. At what level do we KNOW he was involved. Gambled on baseball? Yes. Against the Reds? No. On Reds games involving things like the spread or run totals? I don't know this and this is the biggest issue to me as these are the only issues where he would be inclined to play suboptimally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe that if Rose had simply told the truth about betting on games and not led everyone on a charade for 20 years, he would be at least be back in the game coaching in some capacity at the MLB level. But, as is often the case, the cover up puts you in much deeper s**t than the initial crime actually would.

If McGwire, who made a mockery out of the game by roiding out of his mind, can be a coach at the MLB level, then Rose certainly should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What A-Rod and that era of sluggers did for years (take steroids) was much more damaging to the sport than what Pete Rose did.

Pete Rose should be in the HOF and working for a ball club. His talent and influence would be priceless to any baseball organization. I would be thrilled if my team hired him, and you would too.

Bring him to Philly, we'll always take someone the rest of the world has turned their back on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes..the man should be allowed to coach considering his offenses were some 20-25 years ago. Although he only recently admitted it, to me he has served his time. But he never will manage again at the MLB level.

And actually, no young player knows or even cares who Pete Rose is. He's from a different era, a different kind of ball player. The game is not made of 'Charlie Hustle's' anymore its all about contract money and oblique strains..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And actually, no young player knows or even cares who Pete Rose is. He's from a different era, a different kind of ball player. The game is not made of 'Charlie Hustle's' anymore its all about contract money and oblique strains..

That's not true, I'm young and I definitely know Pete Rose. He is a legend in baseball, I'd say most people born in 1992 or earlier know about Rose. Most Career Hits, of all time, every baseball player knows that, young or old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be in the HoF. Should not be allowed to manage.

I don't really see the analogy to the steroid guys. Just because 1 is allowed, doesn't have any relevance to the other. I'm not sure why the OP even addressed that. That's a totally separate thread.

He bet on games. That is incredibly wrong when you are in a position of control. To me, there's no second chance. If you are in a management position, you should be held to a higher standard.

But, none of that has anything to do with what he did as a player. He is part of the history of the game, and that part of his personal history should be in there. The moment we neglected to take OJ out of the football HoF is the day we as a society decided that there is a separation between what you do as a player and what you do otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One manager (read: 1 out of 30) can't rig the entire sport. He's not Vince McMahon.

He can't rig the entire sport but he can rig 162 games. Honestly, he's a slimy character and hasn't changed one bit over the years. I would not want someone like him near my team. I'm sure most fans would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is HUGE difference between roiding and gambling on your team. A manager has a lot more influence on the outcome of a game especially if he bets on his team to lose. He can make subtle lineup changes or substitutions that most people can't pinpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is HUGE difference between roiding and gambling on your team. A manager has a lot more influence on the outcome of a game especially if he bets on his team to lose. He can make subtle lineup changes or substitutions that most people can't pinpoint.

100% agree - I think I've seen this in other threads before, but if he bets on his team to win, he may actually impact MORE games. For example - betting on his team tomorrow, so tonight, his closer isn't available, rests certain players, etc.

Like I said, I think the roid thing is totally separate, but if you do compare the 2, this is 10 times worse. And, his balls don't shrink as a result, so we need to punish him somehow....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing betting on baseball to using steroids is an insult to the magnitude of betting on baseball.

The Black Sox scandal nearly did irreparable damage to baseball. Had Landis not come in with guns blazing, who knows where baseball would be right now? When you allow what happens on the field to be determined by something other than who is the best team, you open an enormous can of worms. A bunch of players using substances to increase performance pales in comparison, because at least everyone is still trying to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo-He should be allowd to manage and he should be a hall of famer.

With that said I think he was overrated as a player (still hall worthy) and I would never higher him as a manager. I think he is to selfish to be a leader of anything much less a baseball team.

my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority wants him to manage yet I haven't heard one convincing reason as to why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The majority wants him to manage yet I haven't heard one convincing reason as to why.

There is a difference between wanting him to manage, and believing he should be allowed to have the opportunity. And in this country, I'm pretty sure the ones trying to take away someone's freedom should be making the argument for their case, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comparing betting on baseball to using steroids is an insult to the magnitude of betting on baseball.

The Black Sox scandal nearly did irreparable damage to baseball. Had Landis not come in with guns blazing, who knows where baseball would be right now? When you allow what happens on the field to be determined by something other than who is the best team, you open an enormous can of worms. A bunch of players using substances to increase performance pales in comparison, because at least everyone is still trying to win.

You hit the nail on the head. Juicers, though I can never advocate what they did, were trying to win games. Rose abused his power as a figurehead to bet on baseball, & I'm not nearly convinced that he never bet against the Reds. He claimed for 20 years he never bet on baseball. Now he claims he bet on baseball, just never against his team? The man has no credibility at this point. He may have very well fixed games.

That said, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame eventually. But in my eyes, he loses the privilege to ever work for an MLB team in any capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
The majority wants him to manage yet I haven't heard one convincing reason as to why.

The majority is usually pretty stupid. See 2008 Presidential Election for details.

Share this post


Link to post
You hit the nail on the head. Juicers, though I can never advocate what they did, were trying to win games. Rose abused his power as a figurehead to bet on baseball, & I'm not nearly convinced that he never bet against the Reds. He claimed for 20 years he never bet on baseball. Now he claims he bet on baseball, just never against his team? The man has no credibility at this point. He may have very well fixed games.

That said, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame eventually. But in my eyes, he loses the privilege to ever work for an MLB team in any capacity.

Hypothetically, let's just say that he's telling the truth about never betting against the Reds while he was manager.

If you're Pete Rose's bookie, and on the day of a Reds game Pete Rose doesn't cause your phone to ring that day, what does that tell you.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a difference between wanting him to manage, and believing he should be allowed to have the opportunity. And in this country, I'm pretty sure the ones trying to take away someone's freedom should be making the argument for their case, not the other way around.

Well he took away his own freedom to manage when he got caught betting on his own games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You hit the nail on the head. Juicers, though I can never advocate what they did, were trying to win games.

Two thoughts on this...

1. How do we know this for sure? Given the self-centered, egotistical nature of many of these athletes, one can just as easily conclude that they were 'roiding to boost their own individual stats and, by extension, their next contract. IMO, this would be an even more likely motivation than winning games.

2. This also, to my mind, is making a moral distinction between whether you're gambling for or against your team. So it's not as bad to bet ON your team 'cause, well, at least you're trying to win the game?

Anyway, I vote NO to Pete Rose managing in the majors 'cause the last thing baseball needs now in this (hopefully) post-steroid era is another reason to distrust the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen pedo's get better treatment from the general public than Pete Rose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually for Pete Rose being in the HOF, because I believe it's what you do as a player, but do not think he should be able to manage. The question about him setting lineups, making pitching changes, and gambling is too great.

In the HOF, but banned from baseball, of course including managing.

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.