DonkeyKongerko Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 This is my first poll ever. The special on ESPN tonite with Dershowitz and Johnnie Cochran has got me all pumped up. I am a baseball purist and I believe Rose should be in the HOF. What do you think? "The man could hit, you must acquit" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 The man was definately awesome, but people that bet on baseball don't belong in the hall of fame. This rule was created long before Pete was there and its going to last long after Pete Rose's life. In no circumstance should he be allowed into the Hall. Now if he admits to everything, then the day after he dies, I'd put him into the hall of fame. Now in regards to Shoeless Joe, I think he should be in. The flaw is they say he took the money, even though he never tried to throw the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I voted no, but interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the betting on baseball issue. I recently adopted the belief that any professional athlete who has been convicted of a crime and has spent time in jail should not be in any "club" where the word "fame" is associated. To me, the Hall of Fame is something that children should be able to look to and be full of people they can aspire to be. Not just people who could hit a baseball or throw a lot of touchdowns -- but also people who were lawabiding citizens. Pete, as most of you know I'm sure, went to prison for like 3 years for tax evasion. That disqualifies him from my HOF. Pete Rose -- all-time hit king (a record that will probably never be broken), but he f***ed himself out of the HOF. Sorry Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 No. This one's been around before so I'll save the bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 No. This one's been around before so I'll save the bother. Not all of us were here when it was discussed before. Some of us (not me, necessarily, but probably someone) would be interested to hear more than a "no" answer from you. So, please elaborate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I voted yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 no now and when he dies, if he admit to it, like another poster said, yes with a asterick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I voted yes. As would I if it were not for his tax evasion troubles. On the field, there's no doubt he's a hall of famer. Off the field, he's more of a hall of shamer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Typical, so typical. The count is 4-4 yet im the only one with the balls to admit i said yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 As would I if it were not for his tax evasion troubles. On the field, there's no doubt he's a hall of famer. Off the field, he's more of a hall of shamer. look at ty cobb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Not all of us were here when it was discussed before. Some of us (not me, necessarily, but probably someone) would be interested to hear more than a "no" answer from you. So, please elaborate. I'll be brief then, a gambler a, a cheater and an asshole, who refuses to admit guilt for what he's done and signed a contract agreeing to ban himself from baseball, case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Typical, so typical. The count is 4-4 yet im the only one with the balls to admit i said yes. I said yes, but i can't think why I said yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I said yes because baseball is a game and Pete Rose was a great baseball players. Great baseball players belong in the HOF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 I said yes because I think the rule was stupid in the first place. It was laid down in the precedent of Landis' decision about Shoeless Joe and Cictte et. al. but I don't think he really liked them in the first place. The Shoeless Joe question is another story. There is no evidence Pete ever bet on a game he played in and I think that's the way the rule should work. I also believe there is no proof he ever bet against the Reds in a game he was managing (I'm not sure about that one). But like I said before, I believe the HOF is about baseball players and not people who bet or cheated which I think is a worse offense. Durocher is in the HOF and Sammy will be too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I said yes because I think the rule was stupid in the first place. It was laid down in the precedent of Landis' decision about Shoeless Joe and Cictte et. al. but I don't think he really liked them in the first place. The Shoeless Joe question is another story. There is no evidence Pete ever bet on a game he played in and I think that's the way the rule should work. I also believe there is no proof he ever bet against the Reds in a game he was managing (I'm not sure about that one). But like I said before, I believe the HOF is about baseball players and not people who bet or cheated which I think is a worse offense. Durocher is in the HOF and Sammy will be too. I, too, think cheating(sammy) is worse than betting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernuke Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 The hall is full of liars, cheaters and all around assholes whats one more? Let him in for his accomplishments on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndySoxFan Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 pete rose is a scumbag. i have no sympathy for his sorry ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndySoxFan Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 The hall is full of liars, cheaters and all around assholes whats one more? Let him in for his accomplishments on the field. yes, but no one in the hall has been banned for life. f*** him its his own fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernuke Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 yes, but no one in the hall has been banned for life. f*** him its his own fault. You are right no one in the hall has been banned for life but I bet alot of them could be if the same rules always applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Fainter Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 All he has to do is confess, do a few mea culpas, cry, ask for forgiveness, and a path would be cleared for his admission. Might take a few years, but it would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I, too, think cheating(sammy) is worse than betting. Supposedly all the evidence is in the folder and Pete didn't want that folder opened so he agreed to the ban. What people close to the case say is that there is more the enough evidence to show he bet on his team numerous times, not just once. You think if he hadn't done that, he would of signed the deal. Sure he goes out and says all these things, but why not re-open the case and let all the evidence go out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I voted no, but interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the betting on baseball issue. I recently adopted the belief that any professional athlete who has been convicted of a crime and has spent time in jail should not be in any "club" where the word "fame" is associated. To me, the Hall of Fame is something that children should be able to look to and be full of people they can aspire to be. Not just people who could hit a baseball or throw a lot of touchdowns -- but also people who were lawabiding citizens. Pete, as most of you know I'm sure, went to prison for like 3 years for tax evasion. That disqualifies him from my HOF. Pete Rose -- all-time hit king (a record that will probably never be broken), but he f***ed himself out of the HOF. Sorry Pete. Bulls***. Profesional athletes are human like anyone else. They're personal life should have nothing to do with their HOF status. Pete Rose was the Perfect example of what a baseball player should be minus the gambling. Kids should be taught not to look up to these guys or try to be like them. They f*** up just like anyone else. I respect the player on the field. Half of them are f*** heads if you try to talk to them. perfect example. Aarron Rowand. This little son of a b**** has his nose in the air already and he no one. Look up to that????? NEVER! They have Million dollar jobs. It's nothing like it used to be. Pete Rose was one of the greatest baseball players that ever lived. That's what the HOF is about. MLB HOF. Not the Nobel peace Prize. Put him in there already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Half of them are f*** heads if you try to talk to them. perfect example. Aarron Rowand. This little son of a b**** has his nose in the air already and he no one. Look up to that????? NEVER! MAURY!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Supposedly all the evidence is in the folder and Pete didn't want that folder opened so he agreed to the ban. What people close to the case say is that there is more the enough evidence to show he bet on his team numerous times, not just once. You think if he hadn't done that, he would of signed the deal. Sure he goes out and says all these things, but why not re-open the case and let all the evidence go out. bingo, the intergerity of the game was damage. you need guidlines, if not, then players could use all the drugs, bet on every game or point in all sports. not just one. 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.