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

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.

He had the opportunity and he abused it. Sorry Charlie Hustle, your baseball days are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sucks for Pete but they need to set a strong example. Gambling should not be tolerated.

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.

Except this is a discussion board, not a court of law.

And he's officially banned from baseball. He's not having his freedom taken away any more than a convicted drunk driver who loses his license or a sex offender who is court-ordered to steer clear of schools. He is free to pursue a living in any other career, he just can't partake in the activity that was the source of his problem to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except this is a discussion board, not a court of law.

And he's officially banned from baseball. He's not having his freedom taken away any more than a convicted drunk driver who loses his license or a sex offender who is court-ordered to steer clear of schools. He is free to pursue a living in any other career, he just can't partake in the activity that was the source of his problem to begin with.

This problem with that argument is your first statement is "except this is a discuession board, not a court of law"

Yet the 2 example's you provide are both penalties from a court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This problem with that argument is your first statement is "except this is a discuession board, not a court of law"

Yet the 2 example's you provide are both penalties from a court of law.

He broke the cardinal rule in baseball. What Rose did is akin to money managers who bet against their own portfolio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This problem with that argument is your first statement is "except this is a discuession board, not a court of law"

Yet the 2 example's you provide are both penalties from a court of law.

Except I was making two entirely separate points... in the first statement, that EVERYONE who is taking a side in a discussion board should be making their case, whichever side they're taking. One side shouldn't be any more obliged than the other to support their opinions.

My other point -- again, separate from the first point -- was specifically addressing the "freedom" issue. In Major League Baseball, a ban from the commissioner (or a suspension, or a fine, or league takeover of a team, etc. etc.) is officially the law of the land. So much like those other examples (drunk driver, sex offender) are being penalized for something they did as opposed to being denied a freedom, so is Rose being denied the right to participate in MLB as a penalty for something HE did. I don't see that as taking away his freedom. He took that away all by himself when he gambled on baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sucks for Pete but they need to set a strong example. Gambling should not be tolerated.

This.

This is what he gets for attempting to play God with a baseball game. At least the PED users still had to perform .... against other PED users. Lowering the bar and allowing Rose back into baseball could potentially open up the door for future abusers.

HOF ... Yes

Baseball ... NO!

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.

Stellar point.

But at what point does winning become a detriment? Steroids meant players didn't win cleanly, just like Rose gambling most likely meant his team didn't lose cleanly. I understand that he tainted the essence of the sport by taking away the competitive aspect, but steroids amounted to much the same: they made the playing field uneven, which also meant taking away some competition. Furthermore, they altered HISTORY. They set up poisoned MILESTONES. That, to me, is a bigger problem than Rose possibly costing his team 10-15 games (and that's the maximum; it was probably more like 5 games, if you ask me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar point.

But at what point does winning become a detriment? Steroids meant players didn't win cleanly, just like Rose gambling most likely meant his team didn't lose cleanly. I understand that he tainted the essence of the sport by taking away the competitive aspect, but steroids amounted to much the same: they made the playing field uneven, which also meant taking away some competition. Furthermore, they altered HISTORY. They set up poisoned MILESTONES. That, to me, is a bigger problem than Rose possibly costing his team 10-15 games (and that's the maximum; it was probably more like 5 games, if you ask me).

The problem is that steroid, PED's, or any type of illegal enhancers exist across the board. In almost every gambling case, the said offender is effectively banned from the sport. The reason is because gambling is far more detrimental to the sport than an athlete trying to boost his performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Rose bet on his team to WIN?

That's what he said. Personally, I believe him (the Reds were second in the NL Central a majority of the seasons during his tenure), but I was trying to look at it from the perspective of a skeptic.

The problem is that steroid, PED's, or any type of illegal enhancers exist across the board. In almost every gambling case, the said offender is effectively banned from the sport. The reason is because gambling is far more detrimental to the sport than an athlete trying to boost his performance.

Why is it more detrimental, though, when PEDs - I sound like a broken record, lol - managed to alter the course of history as opposed to Pete Rose managing (no pun intended) to lose a few games throughout 5 years, which isn't significant in any sense of the word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a man that's accused of gambling on baseball, I cannot think of one logical argument that would allow him to coach. Really? As a coach he'd have control over the entire game. Whether or not you think he's done gambling now or not, just put those facts together.

Guys bets on baseball from the inside + put into position to control entire game = BAD IDEA.

Edit: Just voted and saw it was 41-38, yes. Just wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Rose bet on his team to WIN?

So he claims. He's changed his stance so many times that by now, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. The only reason he wants back in is so that he can make money. Not for the benefit of the sport, fans, fellow athletes, or anything else greater than himself and his pocket book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Rose bet on his team to WIN?

I like a guy that is willing to put money on his team to win....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like a guy that is willing to put money on his team to win....

You guys are naive beyond belief... Have you guys ever gambled? Know anyone with a gambling problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like a guy that is willing to put money on his team to win....

I wouldn't mind as much if he'd just tell ME when he's doing it....

But, Yoda is 100% correct above. You can never guarantee winning, but you can be pretty darned sure about losing when you're in control like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a self-serving ego maniac. I'd put his jersey, ball, bat, etc in the Hall. I'm not sure about him though. Maybe a disclaimer saying that he is not in because he disgraced the game.

Rose, the person, should never, ever be allowed near MLB. He is a disgrace and even when he was caught, he denied guilt.

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.

Agreeing with both points. Bottom line is he broke a rule that was fairly clear. And it was fairly clear what the punishment would be. He took the risk. He got busted. He's out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Rose bet on his team to WIN?

Who cares?

as I posted before

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
Edit: Just voted and saw it was 41-38, yes. Just wild.

Mindboggling, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty amazing how close to an even split this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it more detrimental, though, when PEDs - I sound like a broken record, lol - managed to alter the course of history as opposed to Pete Rose managing (no pun intended) to lose a few games throughout 5 years, which isn't significant in any sense of the word?

A few athletes roiding in hopes of boosting their individual performance (doesn't work for everyone) is fundamentally different from a degenerate gambler/criminal who has his dirty hands over the fate of an entire club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few athletes roiding in hopes of boosting their individual performance (doesn't work for everyone) is fundamentally different from a degenerate gambler/criminal who has his dirty hands over the fate of an entire club.

That's not what I said.

How is it more pure to put up corrupt historical milestones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not what I said.

How is it more pure to put up corrupt historical milestones?

Because most of us don't give a crap about milestones. When I watch a baseball game, I want to see extraordinary athletes and managers who dedicate themselves to winning. Who wants to watch a game fixed by a scumbag like Rose depending on his gambling mood/debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because most of us don't give a crap about milestones. When I watch a baseball game, I want to see extraordinary athletes and managers who dedicate themselves to winning. Who wants to watch a game fixed by a scumbag like Rose depending on his gambling mood/debt?

I think ESPN would disagree with you. That play up EVERY milestone. Would they do that if they weren't getting ratings?

I'm not trying to change your mind, yoda, but your logic is very flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think ESPN would disagree with you. That play up EVERY milestone. Would they do that if they weren't getting ratings?

I'm not trying to change your mind, yoda, but your logic is very flawed.

The problem with the steroid era is that it's not really fair to pin it on a few athletes who broke the record. MLB, the commissioner, owners, GM's, managers, coaches, trainers, and pretty everyone knew what was going on. Baseball was hurting and it wasn't until the Sosa/McGwuire years that it started drawing fans in record numbers. So everyone who knew about PED usage turned a blind eye because they were all making money. The funny thing is, for all the outcry about PED's, its usage hasn't changed the popularity of the sport at all. You'd think that if it was so bad for baseball then no one would watch or go to the games and MLB would be bankrupt. Instead, it's becoming more popular with record attendance and ratings. So why are PED's bad again?

On the flip side, let's say that a bunch of known gambling addicts were allowed to manage MLB clubs. Do you think people would still go to the games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.