• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Pete Rose (Charlie Hustle, 4256, Reds HOF, R.I.P.)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
DubCoffman62 said:
Pete should be in and it's a joke that he's not. So what, he was a bit mischievous. Most pro athletes are pretty messed up people. Micky Mantle was a whoring drunk. We've all heard the stories about how many athletes were coke heads, rapists and among other things. So Pete placed a few bets. In the grand scheme of things although he shouldn't have, it's not that big of a deal. He was out hero back in the 70's. No one was more famous EXCEPT maybe Reggie Jackson for a few years. Dude needs to be in.
Click to expand...
He bet on fucking baseball man. The rules on this are not ambiguous.

Hell of a player. Bet on baseball. Banned.

Like day follows night.
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
It was a “permanent” ban was it not?
Click to expand...
Per Google:

Rose agreed to a permanent — not lifetime, permanent — ban from baseball in 1989, essentially so he could quickly apply for reinstatement without admitting fault. Rose was reportedly offered an opportunity for reinstatement as long as he came clean and stopped associating himself with gambling. He declined it.
 
Upvote 2
Thump said:
It was a “permanent” ban was it not?
Click to expand...
You’re right, and it wasn’t really a judgment call made by Bart Giamatti. Although the rule doesn’t appear to be about about Hall of Fame eligibility, the language seems to relate to the ability to be employed in any way by MLB or any of its teams. However, the group that votes for the Hall of Fame, the BBWAA, has a rule that states that ”any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate”, and that keeps him out for now.

Baseball‘s Rule 21, Section D, paragraphs 1 and 2 state:

Rule 21, Misconduct:
(d) Gambling.
(1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection in which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection in which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
Click to expand...

This is from Giamatti’s report from August, 1989:

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.
Click to expand...

BBWAA rule 3.E
E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if the baseball people that drafted Rule 21 meant for “permanent” to be forever, rather than for the rest of someone’s life, but base on the definitions of the words the ban is forever.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
In my mind, there is no way you can make any change to the Pete Rose situation while the Shoeless Joe Jackson ban has stood since he died in 1951.
Click to expand...
They are very different though. Pete wagered post playing career. Dowd report specifically says no evidence of gambling during his playing career. Shoeless Joe accepted money to throw the World Series.
 
Upvote 0
heisman said:
They are very different though. Pete wagered post playing career. Dowd report specifically says no evidence of gambling during his playing career. Shoeless Joe accepted money to throw the World Series.
Click to expand...
He bet on the games, often from the dugout, as a manger. He could absolutely influence the outcome of a game.

What I haven’t seen any proof of is this idea that he only bet on his team to win. That sounds like complete horseshit to me.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
He bet on the games, often from the dugout, as a manger. He could absolutely influence the outcome of a game.

What I haven’t seen any proof of is this idea that he only bet on his team to win. That sounds like complete horseshit to me.
Click to expand...
Correct, post-playing career. If he was found out betting as a manager two years later, he would already be in the Hall. Would they remove him?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top