The W
Views: 101430633
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.14 0327
The W - Baseball - Pete Rose on ABC - 1/8/04 - 10pm EST
This thread has 36 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.49
Pages: 1
(1124 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (17 total)
The Atomic Tomato
Pinkelwurst








Since: 6.12.03
From: Hazleton, PA

Since last post: 3945 days
Last activity: 3945 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
Pete Rose is the focus of a Primetime Thursday interview with Charles Gibson this Thursday, January 8'th at 10pm EST.

Anybody else think this might be it? Think he might admit that he bet on the game?
Promote this thread!
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 191 days
Last activity: 85 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.36
    Originally posted by The Atomic Tomato
    Pete Rose is the focus of a Primetime Thursday interview with Charles Gibson this Thursday, January 8'th at 10pm EST.

    Anybody else think this might be it? Think he might admit that he bet on the game?



Apparently, quite a few people do, at least according to this article from the December 31, 2003 NY Times (nytimes.com):

A new autobiography of Pete Rose is scheduled to hit bookstores next week amid widespread expectations that Rose will use it to admit publicly for the first time that he bet on baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds.

The book, "My Prison Without Bars," has a huge first printing, 500,000 copies, and is being handled in secretive fashion by the publisher, Rodale Press, which has embargoed the book until Jan. 8, when Rose will take part in interviews about its contents.


The January 8 appearance on ABC would of course be one of the interviews referred to in the article above.

It's worth noting that, according to the same article, while this will be Rose's first public admission that he bet on baseball games, Rose has already privately confessed to the current commissioner:


A major league official said yesterday Rose made such an admission when he met with Commissioner Bud Selig in Milwaukee on Nov. 25, 2002. The official, who said he was aware of what was discussed at the meeting, said that Rose was asked by Selig if he had bet on baseball and that he replied that he had.

Of course, such a public admission by Rose may not sit too well with those who had previously taken him at his word and publicly defended Rose and his position that he had not bet on baseball. Likewise, there is no certainty that those who had believed that Rose was lying all along will suddenly embrace him with open arms should he now admit to having bet on baseball games while manager of the Cincinnati Reds. It's quite possible that the reaction of this group may echo the sentiments expressed by former Major League Baseball Commisioner Fay Vincent in this Op-Ed (nytimes.com). However, I believe that when all is said and done Rose's confession will leave him with the support of enough people to get him what he truly wants, admission to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And, who knows, once Pete Rose is elected to the Hall of Fame, we fans may several years from now be treated to yet another book, where Rose will repudiate this book, claiming to have lied just so Major League Baseball would let him into the Hall of Fame. This could indeed prove to be baseball's version of "The Never Ending Story."

P.S. - The NY TImes links may require that you register (for free) in order to access the story.




Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Question: what exactly would happen if Rose is just working MLB and in five years, after he's enshrined in the Hall, he comes back and admits he never bet on the Reds? Could baseball kick him out of the Hall?



Rob asks Dave and Ric if they want to go backstage to play Hungry Hungry Hippos and Flair and Batista immediately bail. Flair wants to be Green. Man, EVERYBODY wants to be green. Except the girl in the commercials. She wanted to be pink. That either means that the ad agency was sexist or that she was communist. Of course Hungry Hungry Hippos is a rather capitalist game isnít it? No self respecting communist would play Hungry Hungry Hippos. Except Stalin. He LOVED Hungry Hungry Hippos. God, Iíve got no clue what the hell Iím rambling about anymore.-- Matt "Excalibur05" Hocking, Raw Satire writer extraordinaire

You know, I just can't call it the "WWE." I just can't. My body's rejecting it like a bad liver transplant.-- Bill Simmons, espn.com/page2
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
How long had Rose been retired from playing before he got banned? I believe that he should have to wait out the rest of his eligibility period if he is reinstated.



BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3434 days
Last activity: 3344 days
ICQ:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.10
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Question: what exactly would happen if Rose is just working MLB and in five years, after he's enshrined in the Hall, he comes back and admits he never bet on the Reds? Could baseball kick him out of the Hall?


Answer: Would anyone believe him if he did that?

Look at it this way...if Pete Rose puts out a book, it's no big deal. If he puts out a book and admits for the first time that he bet on baseball, not only does he get into the Hall of Fame but he sits back and watches the money roll in from this generation's Ball Four. Besides, all he's admitting to is something that most people think he's guilty of anyway. It'd be like OJ coming out now and saying 'yeah, I did it'. It'll be newsworthy for a day or two, but really, the shock of it all set in years ago.



Don't you hate pants?
The Atomic Tomato
Pinkelwurst








Since: 6.12.03
From: Hazleton, PA

Since last post: 3945 days
Last activity: 3945 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
    Originally posted by Whitebacon
    How long had Rose been retired from playing before he got banned? I believe that he should have to wait out the rest of his eligibility period if he is reinstated.


Technically, that would be the rest of his life. Giamatti said that he had accepted baseball's ultimate sanction: lifetime ineligibility.

That would mean the year after Rose dies, he is eligible for the Hall Of Fame.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
You missed my point. If he is reinstated, what was the length of time that passed between his retirement as an active player and the date of his banishment from baseball? He should have to make up the difference of the five year wait, and whatever amount of time had passed.



BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3434 days
Last activity: 3344 days
ICQ:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.10
As best as I remember:

* You need to be retired five full seasons before you're HOF eligilbe.

* Rose's last year was as a player/manager in 1985.

* Rose was banned in 1989, into his fourth year of retirement.



Don't you hate pants?
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
Thanks, Big Bad. I knew the first, and didn't know the second two. I was kind of hoping that he'd been banned for life like a year or two into his retirement from being an active player, that way, he'd have to at least play nice for a year. I personally don't think I'd let him in without serving some sort of a pennance though.



rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3625 days
Last activity: 3503 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22

From: http://sports.espn.go.com/ mlb/news/story?id=1699418

"As for the Hall of Fame, a player has a 15-year period starting five years after his retirement during which he is eligible for election by the baseball writers. If Rose is reinstated, his final year of eligibility on the ballot would be in December 2005. After that, his possible selection would pass to the veterans committee, which includes all living Hall of Famers, some of whom are adamantly opposed to his induction."

I don't know if that's the definitive answer to his HOF elegibility.

As for his pennance, I think that has been the ban he's been under for the last tweleve years.



Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
But has he felt any remorse? Hardly. He's been blatantly defiant for the last twelve years and then he has a change of heart? The release of his book coinciding with the release of the HOF inductions? The man is just trying to make more money for himself, and Selig is helping him as much as possible, so his tenure as commissioner won't be viewed as a total failure. Rose committed one of the ultimate sins in baseball, he bet on the game. From what I've read on the subject, Giamatti didn't even use all of the evidence he had against Rose, just enough to get him banned. Dan Patrick has written that he spoke to a bookie that helped handle some of Rose's action, and that there were bets placed on Reds games. Only to win, yes, but, unless you're betting on them to win every game that's going to affect your judgement on how to manage a game.



pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.21


Whitebacon has hit at the very crux of the argument in his last sentence.

I heard the excerpt on ESPN this morning that Rose has admitted to gambling on baseball.

I don't think this changes anything. He broke THE cardinal sin of baseball. He should not be allowed to work in baseball ever. Period.


Edit: I am still listening to Mike & Mike on ESPN and they just spoke with Fay VIncent. Quite enlightening. He seems like a pretty classy guy. Everyone is waiting for Rose to say that he's sorry. He does not say that in the snippet played on ESPN today. He says he was wrong. It feels like he thinks it was only wrong because he got caught. Loser. Big Loser.

(edited by pieman on 5.1.04 0843)



Gabba Gabba Hey!


Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 163 days
Last activity: 3 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
Rose's act of 'contrition' was to write a pseudo apology in a book and then go on a media blitz. If he were truly contrite, he wouldn't use this to sell more books, especially after he denied ever betting on baseball in his last book. Additionally, my understanding is that he does not actually apologize in his book and he claims that he never bet on baseball in the Reds clubhouse. According to his bookie, this isn't true. In fact, he used he baseball contacts to get more information on other games being played. And, an interesting question is which of these characters (between the bookie and Rose) would be considered a less credible witness. I might have to grade the bookie as more credible, but that's just me.

Also, I think it has already been stated here, but unless he bet on his team to win every single game, then he, in effect, DID bet on his team to lose.

Lastly, unless baseball changes the way the rule is written, then he should not be allowed into the HOF. However, baseball doesn't have a real commish so it will depend on whether it will be more popular to have a HOF Pete Rose or a banned, ineligible Pete Rose.
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2349 days
Last activity: 2346 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.59
I saw the interview last night and I smell bullshit.

First off, there's enough reputable people saying he bet from the clubhouse to assume that he did in fact bet from the club house, keeping in mind that most of the bets took place at 7:15 p.m. (assumedly after Rose could see how the teams looked after warmups), and plus this is not a phone call you'd want to make out in the open, so if it was at that time, where else would he be BUT the manager's office?

Second, this whole "I bet but I didn't bet against myself" doesn't matter anyway. It's been said before, but him abstaining from making a bet had to be the biggest signal flare in the universe to bookies to bet agasint the Reds.

Finally, there was a part in the interview where he implied that yes, gambling CAN be a problem, but it's not a problem that *I* had and apparantly a gambling problem isn't compulsive behavior, it's gambling beyond one's means, because 5 seconds later he turns around and said he did it to fill a competitive void, and couldn't stop. Sound like addiction to anyone?

Bottom line, you don't reward someone for lying for 15 years and then telling half the truth. And even by Pete Rose's standards, this set a new bar for the definition of self-serving.

Enjoy those card shows you run for yourself in August, Pete...it's the closest you're getting to the Hall of Fame.



I Got A Real Red Wagon
skorpio17
Morcilla








Since: 11.7.02
From: New Jersey

Since last post: 2466 days
Last activity: 2466 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.42
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson


    Bottom line, you don't reward someone for lying for 15 years and then telling half the truth. And even by Pete Rose's standards, this set a new bar for the definition of self-serving.

    Enjoy those card shows you run for yourself in August, Pete...it's the closest you're getting to the Hall of Fame.


Do you also not reward a baseball player for his accomplishments? Do you prevent him from being recognized as one of the best players ever? Do you reward the steroid-pushing bookies for testifying against their former friend? Do you permanently prevent the writers from deciding whether or not he deserves to be elected into the Hall of Fame?

I'm not saying he should be reinstated or even allowed into the Hall, but I also don't think that his fate should be determined solely by the commisioner. Especially when Bud Selig fraudulently stole money from his fans and is a worse criminal than Pete Rose.
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2349 days
Last activity: 2346 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.59
    Originally posted by skorpio17
    I'm not saying he should be reinstated or even allowed into the Hall, but I also don't think that his fate should be determined solely by the commisioner.



That's OK, because Bud Selig has no testicles anyway...it's been proven.

But to go back for a second, this is someone who has lied for FIFTEEN YEARS about whether or not he bet on baseball, and then when he comes clean, he only comes part of the way clean and further I have every reason to believe that he is still lying.

At this point, it's not even the crime that's got him in shit now...it's the lie, especially if he's STILL lying now.

And right now, he's not being tried by Bud Selig, he's being tried by the court of public opinion and the media, and I think it's a little more divided than he thought it would be.



I Got A Real Red Wagon
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2887 days
Last activity: 2729 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Skorpio17
    I'm not saying he should be reinstated or even allowed into the Hall, but I also don't think that his fate should be determined solely by the commisioner.


Why don't we let the rules of the game decide his fate? Like Rule 21(d), which states:

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Pete Rose bet on a team he managed, ergo, Pete Rose is permanently ineligible.




Thread rated: 5.49
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Rocket lands in Houston: Clemens to join Astros
Next thread: Tommy Gioiosa on Pete Rose
Previous thread: Juan Gone to Don Royal Blue
(1124 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
All three of Ripken, McGwire, and Gwynn should and will go in on the first ballot. Rickey should and will go in five years after he retires, whenever that is.
- Tom Dean, 2006 HOF vote (2002)
The W - Baseball - Pete Rose on ABC - 1/8/04 - 10pm ESTRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.117 seconds.