PDA

View Full Version : What is the difference between Pete Rose and Roids violaters???



StryderSox
02-12-2009, 07:02 PM
I know that people are getting sick of the steroids debate but something really bugs me about this whole thing.

Pete Rose is the career hits leader but was banned from baseball and is not in the Hall of Fame. Why??? Because he deliberatly broke the rules and disgraced the game of baseball by placing bets on games.

Shoeless Joe Jackson was one of the greatest hitters of his time but is not in the Hall of Fame. Why??? Because he was banned from the game on a belief that he participated in throwing the 1918 World Series (even if the evidence of his participation was shaky).

Why do players like A-Rod and Clemens not face the same fate???? Just because many have done it doesn;t make them any less of cheaters than Rose or Jackson

TheFanGuy
02-12-2009, 07:07 PM
If a roid user makes it to the hall then so should rose and jackson.

BearBird83
02-12-2009, 07:31 PM
I believe the reason for Charlie Hustle was because MLB was trying to make an example of him. Now they look really stupid for not allowing the hits leader be involved in baseball or in the HOF. If the things these cheaters do is overlooked (though it hasn't been so far), then there is no reason Pete should not have his ban lifted. Maybe they just don't wanna go back on a previous decision cause they are too proud.

Spongerob27
02-12-2009, 07:39 PM
I don't know how they they can even call it a HOF without one of the if not the greatest pure hitter of all time. This is a man who yes placed bets on baseball. But they could never prove he bet against his own team to lose. The man belongs there. Roid users will never belong there to me. If any of these damn fools get in someday and only shows how much of a joke the HOF really is.

joba2007
02-12-2009, 08:06 PM
Don't forget that Pete Rose not only placed bets, he was also on speed throughout his career. I doubt he breaks Cobb's record without greenies. So, factor in Rose's amphetamine abuse if you are going to compare him to A-Rod.

My dad said you could tell Rose was on something when you went to the games, because he was hyperactive even when he wasn't on the field.

Kinsm
02-12-2009, 08:16 PM
Pete Rose has been hyperactive his entire life, I grew up five miles down the road from him. He is still hyperactive at his old age.

B2theRY
02-12-2009, 08:29 PM
Pete Rose SHOULD be in the hall of fame.

MetsFan28
02-12-2009, 08:32 PM
It makes them more of a cheater. If Rose didn't bet on games, his stats would pretty much be the same. If these players didn't take roids, they would hit less homers and drive in less runs.

Nikolishin
02-12-2009, 08:37 PM
pete bet on games and a-roid used roids. i think the only cheater there is a-roid.

PETE ROSE SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME

mlh1981
02-12-2009, 08:46 PM
There isn't a difference. Cheating is cheating, but Pete's acts were committed while managing, not while playing. Therefore, IMO, he should be in the hall. I have no problem barring him from baseball, but don't keep him out of the hall. In many people's minds, though, he's already there theoretically speaking, and he has garnered alot of pub and made a ton of money off of this, so I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

thewupk
02-12-2009, 08:49 PM
The main difference between the two is that using steroids you are trying to gain a competitive advantage against other players. In betting on games you are compromising the integrity of the game since you are putting into question whether you are actually trying to win or not. Besides there are already cheaters in the HOF. Whether some of the steroid users get in or not remains to be seen. Rose knew the there was a lifetime ban from baseball when he was betting on games. There were no such rules against steroids. MLB practically encouraged it at the time.

buckeye
02-12-2009, 08:52 PM
So if he bet on games who's to say he didn't affect the outcome in his favor. Substances have always been around they just have different names. All are taken with the same mentality. A focus on improving ones chances of winning. Maybe its just winning a larger contract but its always for improved performance which translates to winning. Gambling might have altogether different aims. So you need to determine the gamblers mindset. That in itself is a totally diferent equation.

misterd
02-12-2009, 10:29 PM
The Black Sox scandal nearly killed the game. For nearly 90 years the one unbreakable rule in baseball was don't bet on baseball. This was long the case when Rose first got into the game. He knew the risks and potential consequences. With steroids, unfortunately, there was no such precedent, and many substances were simply not banned or illegal.

MooseWithFleas
02-12-2009, 10:34 PM
Rose and Jackson SHOULD be in the HoF. Anyone who says elsewise is an idiot. ESPECIALLY with Rose, who bet on baseball AFTER his playing days. What the hell does betting on baseball after he retired from playing do to effect his status as a ballplayer

StryderSox
02-12-2009, 10:48 PM
My point in this matter was that if baseball is goign to come down so hard on Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe without solid evidence then why are players like Clemens and A-Rod not handed the same fate?????

Granted none of the known roids users have been inducted into the hall as of yet but McGwire is still eligible. He is on the ballet where as Pete Rose is allowed to be considered for the Hall of Fame

mdlr52192
02-12-2009, 11:05 PM
When it comes to Pete Rose, I think that he should definitely be in the Hall of Fame because the gambling was outside of baseball, and he wasn't betting to enhance his performance. He should be honored for being one of the greatest hitters of all time, if not the best, and if his ban isn't lifted when a roider gets into the hall, i won't be able to look at baseball the same way.

cambovenzi
02-12-2009, 11:08 PM
When it comes to Pete Rose, I think that he should definitely be in the Hall of Fame because the gambling was outside of baseball, and he wasn't betting to enhance his performance. He should be honored for being one of the greatest hitters of all time, if not the best, and if his ban isn't lifted when a roider gets into the hall, i won't be able to look at baseball the same way.

but he bet ON baseball while he was involved with baseball.
he compromised the integrity of the game.

sure, he as a good enough hitter compared to others in the hall.
but that is not the only thing they look at.

mdlr52192
02-12-2009, 11:12 PM
What i was tryin to say was pretty much that his betting had nothing to do with his performance on the field, which I feel is why he should be in the Hall. I agree with you on the point that it was definitely wrong and compromised his integrity, but I'm just sayin that the way he played should supercede the controversy, but I'm not a Hall of Fame voter so I can't really judge at this point.

stipe1280
02-12-2009, 11:21 PM
Rose may have bet on games while he was playing, but what affect did that have on his Hall of Fame numbers? If anything he hurt himself if he did throw anything.

With these roid guys, their numbers are based upon the drugs they were taking. They only helped boost their stats.

All that said, the Hall should be for those with deserving stats. Rose's at least were legit, these roiders aren't.

joefx21
02-12-2009, 11:45 PM
The difference is that Pete Rose broke the one sacred rule. It was posted in every clubhouse. Everybody knew that, without a doubt, you were not allowed to bet on baseball. There was no grey area.

With steroids/ PED, the rules, if there were any, were not enforced for a long time. Baseball used the athletes that were on PED's to make them money and save the game in the 90s. Everybody turned their backs on the problem for a long time, basically allowing it.

MLB never turned their backs and allowed gambling. They never used gamblers to make money, then went back and tried to punish them That's the difference to me.

theuuord
02-12-2009, 11:53 PM
There was no punishment for using steroids at the time anyone has been accused of using them. There is no official asterisk policy for stats or anything of that nature, because they weren't breaking the rules of baseball.

Pete Rose did the one thing that is written on every clubhouse wall in every stadium tells you you can get banned from baseball for life for.

Now, I don't think Pete Rose should be banned from the Hall of Fame personally, but the two are very different. One was encouraged by MLB and done behind closed doors with no repercussions set. One was noted directly by MLB as saying "if you bet on baseball, you will be banned from baseball for life."

thawv
02-12-2009, 11:56 PM
Rose is not in the HOF for one reason only. Any banned player is not eligible to be in the HOF. He is not even on the ballot. His numbers have nothing to do with the voting.

Mr. October
02-13-2009, 01:05 AM
What's the difference between steroids and betting?

Steroids may or may not affect the game, but betting inside the game will directly affect the game depending on the bet. PEDs do not necessarily make you a better player. The assumption is that they will, but that is not a fact. Betting does affect the game with a large impact, depending on how the player/manager bet on the game.

nstachowski
02-19-2009, 05:57 AM
Because the MLB actually had the balls to punish people back then

nstachowski
02-19-2009, 05:59 AM
What's the difference between steroids and betting?

Steroids may or may not affect the game, but betting inside the game will directly affect the game depending on the bet. PEDs do not necessarily make you a better player. The assumption is that they will, but that is not a fact. Betting does affect the game with a large impact, depending on how the player/manager bet on the game.

Actually they do affect the game. Look at the numbers from the peak of the steroids era and now...look at ARods numbers during those few years. There is a reason that they are banned..they do help the player and IMO its completely ridiculous to say they don't. Just accept the fact that A-Rod cheated.

misterd
02-19-2009, 09:28 AM
Pete has bigger balls.

ehmiu
02-19-2009, 10:04 AM
Pete has bigger balls.

And a smaller head... less acne on his back...

fanofclendennon
02-19-2009, 10:42 AM
MAJOR difference: At least we can be sure that Arod was always trying to win the game, steroids and all. But we can never be certain whether or not Pete Rose the manager was trying to win any given game. Even if he had only bet on his team, you could never be sure whether he was resting key players for today's games because he needed them well rested for the game he was betting on tomorrow.

There's one more problem with Rose: In 1989, then commissioner Bart Giamatti revealed a commissioned report in which he accused Rose of betting on baseball, the creme de la creme of all baseball sins. Rose swore up and down he did not, gave many interviews saying he never had the chance to prove his case because Giamatti would die days after releasing the report. He'd cry to anyone who would listen that he was innocent of all charges. All he wanted was his day in court. And I believed him. The Pete Rose I saw as a player (and no, he never took speed. Greenies, probably, but speed? Get real!) was all about true grit. No one wanted to win more than he did. Give him his day in court I argued and in the meanwhile, put the all time hit leader in the Hall of Fame where he belonged!

About 15 years after he was initially suspended, he published a book saying that (surprise surprise) he did bet on baseball afterall. Evidently, he wanted to admit it all along. He was just waiting for the right time so that he could make enough money on the confession. That's when he lost me.

Rose in the Hall of Fame? Never! I'd put the Bonds and Arods and McGwires and Sosas and Clemenses and Palmieros etc in long before I would even consider that low life.

poodski
02-19-2009, 10:49 AM
Steroids to me a much much smaller offense than gambling on games you play on.

Cheating to win will always in my book be better than throwing a game for money.

Many cheaters are in the hall of fame.

theuuord
02-19-2009, 10:51 AM
Because the MLB actually had the balls to punish people back then

lol how old are you?

Ron!n
02-19-2009, 10:56 AM
Steroids to me a much much smaller offense than gambling on games you play on.

Cheating to win will always in my book be better than throwing a game for money.

Many cheaters are in the hall of fame.

:clap:
Until they can prove he never bet against himself, he doesnt belong in the Hall.

Like it or not Steroid users made the game more interesting and competitive. That you can prove but its pretty much impossible to prove if he bet against his team or not.

Gigantes4Life
02-19-2009, 11:01 AM
Because the MLB actually had the balls to punish people back then

Yes, let's see the MLB punish the whole MLB - that will accomplish something.

misterd
02-19-2009, 12:13 PM
One more time:

LIFETIME Ban.

Shoeless Joe's lifetime is long over. The ban should be over.

Pete? Check back in another 20 years.

MJ-BULLS
02-19-2009, 12:36 PM
rose should be in the HOF steroid users are the ones that are cheater lock em up and throw away the key:)

07MVPPatBurrell
02-19-2009, 02:30 PM
It makes them more of a cheater. If Rose didn't bet on games, his stats would pretty much be the same..

they would be identical. how does one thing have anything to do with the other ? he bet on games as a coach, not a player.

rmkest77
02-19-2009, 02:46 PM
Pete Rose not being in the Hall of Fame is a joke. The Hall of Fame is about what you did not the field, not off.

Moosie Doom
02-19-2009, 02:59 PM
Rose isn't in there, because the rules say you are banned for life if you gamble. Personally, I think that's a little extreme, but arguing whether or not it's fair is beside the point. You need to get the penalties changed before you can get guys like Jackson or Rose enshrined.

Steroids have been against the rules since 1971, but all of these guys have a shot at the Hall because there isn't a lifetime ban for using illegal drugs. It would definitely be unfair to try and retroactively ban the players now.

FloridaFrank
02-19-2009, 03:02 PM
I think they should all be in the Hall... although I don't think Raffy Palmiero is an HOFer.

Rose - Yes
Bonds - Yes
Clemens - Yes
McGwire - Yes
Alex Rodriguez - Jesus, he's not even past his prime yet... Yes
Sosa - Yes

Sheffield - No
Giambi - No
Palmiero - No
Canseco - No
Juan Gonzalez - No
The rest of the 90s Texas Rangers - No... except:

Pudge Rodriguez - Maybe?

BLooDShoT_GrK
02-19-2009, 03:42 PM
Rose should be in the Hall of Fame the roids users should be in the Hall of Shame

Squigga420
02-19-2009, 05:26 PM
Rose isn't in there, because the rules say you are banned for life if you gamble. Personally, I think that's a little extreme, but arguing whether or not it's fair is beside the point. You need to get the penalties changed before you can get guys like Jackson or Rose enshrined.

Steroids have been against the rules since 1971, but all of these guys have a shot at the Hall because there isn't a lifetime ban for using illegal drugs. It would definitely be unfair to try and retroactively ban the players now.

Didnt the commissioner show this World Series that hes aloud to change rules as he pleases? Its insane Pete Rose isnt in the hall. He bet when he was a coach so induct him as a player not a coach.