biggio7 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Leader said: Not any more or less than any of the other players IMO. I disagree because if he was all about getting the truth out there shouldn't he disputing what Correa said instead of just declining to answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDez Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 2 hours ago, BayRaider said: I’m ok letting the Astros keep their rings (although the biggest damn * next to it you can ever have) if they let Pete Rose into the damn hall of fame. Gambling on sports should you get in trouble but he didn’t cheat in any way which is the only thing that should disqualify you from the HoF Never happening. He not only broke serious rules but also didn’t bet on his team to win every game he ever coached. He basically let the bookies know you don’t believe in your team one day and so the others. I hate when he gets brought up every time somebody else screws up. In fact maybe he’s in anyway if he wasn’t such an @ss about it for so long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, biggio7 said: I disagree because if he was all about getting the truth out there shouldn't he disputing what Correa said instead of just declining to answer? He's not on the team anymore. It's not his burden to bear. He broke the dam. MLB did the investigation. It's up to the Astros to deal with it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggio7 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 9 minutes ago, Leader said: He's not on the team anymore. It's not his burden to bear. He broke the dam. MLB did the investigation. It's up to the Astros to deal with it now. He ignited the fire. He shouldn't just be free to walk away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 Get off the internet Mendoza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 2 hours ago, biggio7 said: He ignited the fire. He shouldn't just be free to walk away. Okay. Agree to disagree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonStark Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 16 hours ago, DirtyDez said: Never happening. He not only broke serious rules but also didn’t bet on his team to win every game he ever coached. He basically let the bookies know you don’t believe in your team one day and so the others. I hate when he gets brought up every time somebody else screws up. In fact maybe he’s in anyway if he wasn’t such an @ss about it for so long. That's a stretch to penalize him for the games he didn't bet on. Every bet he placed was on his team winning, so he never gained anything from his team losing and therefore there was never a conflict of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 12 minutes ago, JonStark said: Every bet he placed was on his team winning That's per Pete Rose, who is a repeated, documented liar about his gambling habits. I wouldn't even take that with a mountain of salt, I'd just disregard it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonStark Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: That's per Pete Rose, who is a repeated, documented liar about his gambling habits. I wouldn't even take that with a mountain of salt, I'd just disregard it. Has there been any evidence showing otherwise? I'm genuinely asking because if not, it's just something someone made up that got legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, JonStark said: Has there been any evidence showing otherwise? I'm genuinely asking because if not, it's just something someone made up that got legs. I'm not aware of any hard evidence that's been provided one way or another (like a slip or a notebook from his bookie or something). It's pretty much all been word of mouth. Pete's "confessed" multiple times and amended his confession nearly as many. First it was that he never gambled. Then it was he did, but never bet on baseball. Then it was he did, but only as a manager, etc. etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonStark Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I'm not aware of any hard evidence that's been provided one way or another (like a slip or a notebook from his bookie or something). It's pretty much all been word of mouth. Pete's "confessed" multiple times and amended his confession nearly as many. First it was that he never gambled. Then it was he did, but never bet on baseball. Then it was he did, but only as a manager, etc. etc. But you can't base the theory that he bet against his team off of the fact he's been caught lying before. You still have some sort of evidence or else it's just a conspiracy theory. No matter which you believe though, it's definitely a reach to penalize him for the games that he didn't bet on like the previous poster said because he doesn't gain anything from not betting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JonStark said: But you can't base the theory that he bet against his team off of the fact he's been caught lying before. You still have some sort of evidence or else it's just a conspiracy theory. No matter which you believe though, it's definitely a reach to penalize him for the games that he didn't bet on like the previous poster said because he doesn't gain anything from not betting. I'm saying the "I only bet on my team to win" defense is from Pete himself. He was barred for gambling on baseball, no further specifics needed. His defense is based on the specifics of how he bet and that as a result of how he bet, it didn't matter. The only information we have on those specifics is 3rd hand word of mouth (Dan Patrick, for example, says Pete bet on everything) which we can't value highly, and Pete's own words, which aren't worth much considering the amount of lies he's told about his gambling. If Pete had a notebook which had 1 unit on the Reds every single game and that was it or something, that's real evidence. But for right now how much you value the "I only bet on my team" defense is how much you value Pete Rose's honesty about his gambling (read: just about zero). Edited February 18, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 And I'd still rather have Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, since I'm a "it's a museum" guy. But most of the defenses about the specific nature of his conduct are basically his own begging and pleading being passed off as real evidence, and with his record, you'd have to be somewhere between gullible and insane to trust anything he says at this point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) Pete Rose has only himself to blame. He signed his own lifetime ban. Call it "rotten luck" or "poetic justice" that Bart Giamatti died 3 days later (strictly speaking on Pete Rose's situation, not IRL life and death) and he was out of luck. Quote 1. Peter Edward Rose recognizes, agrees and submits to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner: A. To investigate, either upon complain or upon his own initiative, any act, transaction or practice charged, alleged or suspected to be not in the best interests of the national game of Baseball; and B. To determine, after investigation, what preventive, remedial, or punitive action is appropriate in the premises, and to take such action as the case may be. 2. Counsel for Peter Edward Rose, upon his authority, have executed a stipulation dismissing with prejudice the civil action that was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamitlon County, Ohio, captioned Peter Edward Rose v. A. Bartlett Giamatti, No. A8905178, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court from the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Docket No. C-2-89-577. 3. Peter Edward Rose will not avail himself of the opportunity to participate in a hearing concerning the allegations against him, or otherwise offer any defense to those allegations. 4. Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise. He also agrees he will not institute any legal proceedings of any nature against the Commissioner of any of his representatives, either Major League or any Major League Club. 5. The commissioner recognizes and agrees that it is in the best interests of the national game of Baseball that this matter be resolved pursuant to his sole and exclusive authority under the Major League Agreement. THEREFORE, the Commissioner, recognizing the benefits to Baseball from a resolution of this matter, orders and directs that Peter Edward Rose be subject to the following disciplinary sanctions, and Peter Edward Rose, recognizing the sole and exclusive authority of the Commissioner and that it is in his interest to resolve this matter without further proceedings, agrees to accept the following disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Commissioner. a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List. b. Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement. c. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game. Edited February 18, 2020 by MWil23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 17 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Get off the internet Mendoza. What'd she say this time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.