PETE ROSE - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

PETE ROSE

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby Bloody Sox » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:42 am

BronXBombers51 wrote:
apz wrote:I have more respect for Rose than for the Roiders. Sure Pete broke baseball rules, but he didn't cheat like those guys did. I'd much rather see Pete in the HoF than Bonds or Clemens. No way Bonds breaks the HR record without PEDs and that makes all the difference for me. Some have said there were no rules against roids or HGH, but every guy that took them broke the law in doing so. Don't most if not all players have clauses in their contracts pertaining to illegal activity?


Once again...

...then by that logic, getting a speeding ticket is a punishable offense as well, since that's breaking the law. If you're going to say baseball players can be punished for breaking the law, then that pertains to all laws. You can't pick and choose. Well, actually you can, but you need to SPECIFY that in your rulebook, which MLB failed to do until 2003.


By that logic, MLB could not and can not punish players who rape, murder, rob banks, etc. Of course they can, because you don't need to specify it in the rulebook. The commissioner of baseball has every right to use his discretion to pick and choose which broken laws are bad for baseball and take appropriate action - this is true in every sport. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I thought the commissioner had an explicitly stated "for the good of the game" morality type of power to punish players for illegal activity. And on top of that, the rules did allow MLB (even before 2003) to force a player to be tested for steroids if there was evidence that he was using - this certainly implies that baseball did not condone the use of steroids long before 2003.

All that said - I think more and more I'm leaning towards letting everyone who is worthy based only on their stats into the Hall of Fame and then letting history determine the merits of each player's worthiness. If the game itself didn't have the ability or the stones to punish the players appropriately at the time of the player's indiscretions to prevent them from gaining the stats necessary to get into the hall in the first place, then too bad.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Bloody Sox
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2148
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fenway Park, RF Roof Deck

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby Smileyman9 » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:50 am

People are inducted into the hall of fame for doing different things (player, manager, umpire, executive etc). The man who bet on baseball was Pete Rose the manager; However the person who should be inducted into the HoF is Pete Rose the player whose stats should earn him a place. Yes. He may be a jerk. Yes. Betting on baseball is bad. However, given some of those already in the hall of fame...I think it's a tad late to start being picky about ones morals before electing them in.


Nobody is going to "win" this argument about whether or not he deserves to be elected to the HoF. I feel the compromise to this situation is that they let Pete Rose in, but with an asterisk :-D
Image
Smileyman9
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 336
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby BronXBombers51 » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:59 am

Bloody Sox wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:
apz wrote:I have more respect for Rose than for the Roiders. Sure Pete broke baseball rules, but he didn't cheat like those guys did. I'd much rather see Pete in the HoF than Bonds or Clemens. No way Bonds breaks the HR record without PEDs and that makes all the difference for me. Some have said there were no rules against roids or HGH, but every guy that took them broke the law in doing so. Don't most if not all players have clauses in their contracts pertaining to illegal activity?


Once again...

...then by that logic, getting a speeding ticket is a punishable offense as well, since that's breaking the law. If you're going to say baseball players can be punished for breaking the law, then that pertains to all laws. You can't pick and choose. Well, actually you can, but you need to SPECIFY that in your rulebook, which MLB failed to do until 2003.


By that logic, MLB could not and can not punish players who rape, murder, rob banks, etc. Of course they can, because you don't need to specify it in the rulebook.


What examples do you have of this? I've never heard of a player getting suspended or banned from baseball for an offense like that, but maybe I'm wrong.

The commissioner of baseball has every right to use his discretion to pick and choose which broken laws are bad for baseball and take appropriate action - this is true in every sport. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I thought the commissioner had an explicitly stated "for the good of the game" morality type of power to punish players for illegal activity.


The NFL has a personal conduct policy...see here: http://www.nflpa.org/RulesAndRegs/ConductPolicy.aspx

The gives the NFL commissioner rights to take action against criminal behavior. That's why people like Pacman Jones and Tank Johnson were able to be reprimanded by the NFL. NFL clearly states that in their Conduct Policy. To my knowledge, MLB has no such policy. Therefore, MLB has no jurisdiction to reprimand players who break U.S. laws, UNLESS they have it specified as a punishable offense elsewhere in their rulebook (again, not established with PEDs until 2003.)

By this logic, would it be fair of me to say that Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Willie Stargell, etc. should have their records removed and removed from the HOF? After all, they used amphetamines which were illegal according to U.S. law and are now prohibited in the MLB. If you're going to reprimand players for steroid use before there was a steroid policy, then you have to reprimand greenie-use before there was a greenie-policy as well. You can't pick and choose here.

And on top of that, the rules did allow MLB (even before 2003) to force a player to be tested for steroids if there was evidence that he was using - this certainly implies that baseball did not condone the use of steroids long before 2003.
[/quote]

And who was tested? Baseball didn't condone steroid use before 2003? Don't make me laugh. You cannot honestly believe that. MLB rode Mac and Sosa to the top in 1998. They knew this was going on for over a decade. And while other major sports had steroid policies, MLB did nothing to stop its use in the MLB.

To say that they didn't blatantly allow this to happen is extremely naive.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11949
(Past Year: 58)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby apz » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:27 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:...
And who was tested? Baseball didn't condone steroid use before 2003? Don't make me laugh. You cannot honestly believe that. MLB rode Mac and Sosa to the top in 1998. They knew this was going on for over a decade. And while other major sports had steroid policies, MLB did nothing to stop its use in the MLB.

To say that they didn't blatantly allow this to happen is extremely naive.

As I said in an earlier post; Fay Vincent did try to do something about it in 1991. http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/c/memo.pdf
apz
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 556
(Past Year: 33)
Joined: 31 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: New Jersey

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby BronXBombers51 » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:44 pm

apz wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:...
And who was tested? Baseball didn't condone steroid use before 2003? Don't make me laugh. You cannot honestly believe that. MLB rode Mac and Sosa to the top in 1998. They knew this was going on for over a decade. And while other major sports had steroid policies, MLB did nothing to stop its use in the MLB.

To say that they didn't blatantly allow this to happen is extremely naive.

As I said in an earlier post; Fay Vincent did try to do something about it in 1991. http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/c/memo.pdf


He sent a memo.

'nuff said.


There was no testing. There was no punishments. And again...amphetamines are illegal too. Does that mean we can go back and nab Aaron and Mays?
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11949
(Past Year: 58)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby apz » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:58 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:
apz wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:...
And who was tested? Baseball didn't condone steroid use before 2003? Don't make me laugh. You cannot honestly believe that. MLB rode Mac and Sosa to the top in 1998. They knew this was going on for over a decade. And while other major sports had steroid policies, MLB did nothing to stop its use in the MLB.

To say that they didn't blatantly allow this to happen is extremely naive.

As I said in an earlier post; Fay Vincent did try to do something about it in 1991. http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/c/memo.pdf


He sent a memo.

'nuff said.


There was no testing. There was no punishments. And again...amphetamines are illegal too. Does that mean we can go back and nab Aaron and Mays?

They couldn't do any testing or punishing without consent of the union.

Amphetamines won't make you go from hitting 49 hr to 73.
apz
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 556
(Past Year: 33)
Joined: 31 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: New Jersey

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby Bloody Sox » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:03 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:
Bloody Sox wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:Once again...
...then by that logic, getting a speeding ticket is a punishable offense as well, since that's breaking the law. If you're going to say baseball players can be punished for breaking the law, then that pertains to all laws. You can't pick and choose. Well, actually you can, but you need to SPECIFY that in your rulebook, which MLB failed to do until 2003.

By that logic, MLB could not and can not punish players who rape, murder, rob banks, etc. Of course they can, because you don't need to specify it in the rulebook.

What examples do you have of this? I've never heard of a player getting suspended or banned from baseball for an offense like that, but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't have examples - I guess I'm just using common sense. Do you have examples of criminals who were not in any way punished by MLB? It would be beyond absurd that MLB could not suspend a player for committing a crime outside the game.

The commissioner of baseball has every right to use his discretion to pick and choose which broken laws are bad for baseball and take appropriate action - this is true in every sport. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I thought the commissioner had an explicitly stated "for the good of the game" morality type of power to punish players for illegal activity.

The NFL has a personal conduct policy...see here: http://www.nflpa.org/RulesAndRegs/ConductPolicy.aspx
The gives the NFL commissioner rights to take action against criminal behavior. That's why people like Pacman Jones and Tank Johnson were able to be reprimanded by the NFL. NFL clearly states that in their Conduct Policy. To my knowledge, MLB has no such policy. Therefore, MLB has no jurisdiction to reprimand players who break U.S. laws, UNLESS they have it specified as a punishable offense elsewhere in their rulebook (again, not established with PEDs until 2003.)

This may have been what I was thinking of. Seems absurd that it would not be standard across all major sports. Looking around, I see that "Incidentally, on February 11, 1994, the owners greatly reduced the commissioner's power to act in "the best interests of baseball."", so there you go.

By this logic, would it be fair of me to say that Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Willie Stargell, etc. should have their records removed and removed from the HOF? After all, they used amphetamines which were illegal according to U.S. law and are now prohibited in the MLB. If you're going to reprimand players for steroid use before there was a steroid policy, then you have to reprimand greenie-use before there was a greenie-policy as well. You can't pick and choose here.

What does HOF eligibility have to do with the commissioner being able to punish the players? This goes to my final conclusion that they should let them all in - if MLB did not or could not stop this type of behavior, then let them in.

And on top of that, the rules did allow MLB (even before 2003) to force a player to be tested for steroids if there was evidence that he was using - this certainly implies that baseball did not condone the use of steroids long before 2003.

And who was tested? Baseball didn't condone steroid use before 2003? Don't make me laugh. You cannot honestly believe that. MLB rode Mac and Sosa to the top in 1998. They knew this was going on for over a decade. And while other major sports had steroid policies, MLB did nothing to stop its use in the MLB.

Sorry - let me correct my statement - the rules of baseball certainly didn't permit steroid use. Whether it was enforced or not is a different matter. I agree that MLB is partly responsible for ignoring the steroid problem (especially after the strike in 1994) because it was self-serving, but the player's association gets at least as much of the blame for putting up any and every road block possible to prevent any sort of measures to do otherwise.

To say that they didn't blatantly allow this to happen is extremely naive.

As long as by "they" you mean the players association and the teams and the MLB front office, I agree they allowed it to happen.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Bloody Sox
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2148
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fenway Park, RF Roof Deck

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby Bloody Sox » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:06 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:
apz wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:...
And who was tested? Baseball didn't condone steroid use before 2003? Don't make me laugh. You cannot honestly believe that. MLB rode Mac and Sosa to the top in 1998. They knew this was going on for over a decade. And while other major sports had steroid policies, MLB did nothing to stop its use in the MLB.

To say that they didn't blatantly allow this to happen is extremely naive.

As I said in an earlier post; Fay Vincent did try to do something about it in 1991. http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/c/memo.pdf

He sent a memo.
'nuff said.
There was no testing. There was no punishments. And again...amphetamines are illegal too. Does that mean we can go back and nab Aaron and Mays?

I guess my biggest problem with your position is that it seems that you look at this as a pure failure of the commissioner of baseball. If Vincent or Selig tried to do ANYTHING (test, punish, etc.), it would be met with nothing but resistance from the player's union. They'd protest, even strike, if they thought they needed to in order to win. I think the biggest failure of MLB is that they've let the union get way too much power.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Bloody Sox
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2148
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fenway Park, RF Roof Deck

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby Lofunzo » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:37 pm

Smileyman9 wrote:People are inducted into the hall of fame for doing different things (player, manager, umpire, executive etc). The man who bet on baseball was Pete Rose the manager; However the person who should be inducted into the HoF is Pete Rose the player whose stats should earn him a place. Yes. He may be a jerk. Yes. Betting on baseball is bad. However, given some of those already in the hall of fame...I think it's a tad late to start being picky about ones morals before electing them in.


Nobody is going to "win" this argument about whether or not he deserves to be elected to the HoF. I feel the compromise to this situation is that they let Pete Rose in, but with an asterisk :-D


How are you so sure that Rose only bet on baseball when he was a manager?? Because that is what he admitted to more than a decade after his ban?? He is a desperate man that would say anything to improve his chances at getting into the HOF. I don't believe a word that he says.

BronXBombers51 wrote:
apz wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:...
And who was tested? Baseball didn't condone steroid use before 2003? Don't make me laugh. You cannot honestly believe that. MLB rode Mac and Sosa to the top in 1998. They knew this was going on for over a decade. And while other major sports had steroid policies, MLB did nothing to stop its use in the MLB.

To say that they didn't blatantly allow this to happen is extremely naive.

As I said in an earlier post; Fay Vincent did try to do something about it in 1991. http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/c/memo.pdf


He sent a memo.

'nuff said.


There was no testing. There was no punishments. And again...amphetamines are illegal too. Does that mean we can go back and nab Aaron and Mays?


You really amaze me with your constant slippery slope arguments. Speeding tickets?? Nice. You have constantly said that it wasn't against the rules of MLB. That "memo" clearly states that drug use, including steroids, was against the rules. Sure, the testing was a farce but it was clearly against the law and against the rules.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: PETE ROSE

Postby mweir145 » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:34 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
mweir145 wrote:Rose didn't have to agree to a lifetime ban, and he did. He's made his own bed here. He also knows that betting on the game is far worse in the eyes of baseball people than using steroids as PED use as been part of that culture ever since he started as a player. Don't take anything he's said here seriously, it's just another failing attempt to get people to open up to his cause.


Agreed. I'm with you on that. I also think that, indirectly, that's why Bonds and Clemens want to take their steroid use to the grave. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting to anything.

While I would like them to come out and admit it, that's very true. Although the best thing for these players to do right now, seemingly, is to go the "I only tried it once to help my team" approach, as opposed to outright denials.
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 16784
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buiviopaufamp, unioreimi and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Jul. 22
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Texas at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
San Francisco at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
LA Dodgers at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Miami at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
San Diego at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Cleveland at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Kansas City at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Tampa Bay at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Washington at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Detroit at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Baltimore at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
NY Mets at Seattle
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact