+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: SportsCenter (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Should selig reinstate Rose? (/showthread.php?tid=4411)
- GonzoStyle - 12-12-2002
I think to have the HOF without the hit king in it is pretty ridiculous. Rose should definetly be reinstated but at the same time he should be a man and admit his mistakes. He needs to stop with the technicalities and just admit he fucked up and move on. I believe if rose woulda admited his mistake he would have earned the respect of the fans and baseball and woulda been in the HOF years ago. Yet like many people before him he just wouldn't admit his mistake, it just makes it seem like he thinks everyone in the world is blind.
- Teenweek - 12-12-2002
If this is true, I say no, if it isn't than yes, move the fuck on wiht it already and while we are at it, put shoeless joe jackson in the hall too. It was never proven he participated in throwing the world series.
From Today's NY Post:
Quote:December 12, 2002 -- John Dowd, who wrote the damning report that led to Pete Rose's expulsion from baseball 13 years ago, said the report was not as damning as it could have been.
The Washington D.C.-based lawyer revealed yesterday that if the investigation would have continued a little longer it would have shown the all-time hit leader not only bet on Reds' games, but actually bet against the team he was managing.
That made another of Dowd's disclosures yesterday all the more stunning. Dowd said by phone that he has been told that part of Rose's reinstatement agreement would make him manager of the Reds again.
Dowd, who investigated Rose for Commissioners Peter Ueberroth and Bart Giamatti in 1989, said the time constraints to get his examination finished and try to stem a matter that was soiling the sport, forced him to stop pursuing certain avenues. Thus, the official Dowd Report states: "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds."
However, Dowd said he had reliable evidence that Rose indeed bet against his team and was "close" to being able to officially put it into his report, but was prevented by the need to get the report done quickly.
"I think that is probably right," Dowd said when he asked if he thought Rose gambled against the Reds.
In any case, Dowd said Rose did not bet on the Reds whenever two pitchers, including Mario Soto, started, which "sent a message through the gambling community that the Reds can't win" on those days.
Dowd also said he has lingering concerns about the extent Rose was involved in a cocaine distribution ring in the late 1980s.
In the Sept. 2001 issue of Vanity Fair, former Rose associate Tommy Gioiosa said Rose invested money in cocaine deals. Dowd also worries Rose is still vulnerable to people he might owe money to from that time, making him a greater risk to provide inside information again if he is allowed back into major league clubhouses.
"[Rose's possible reinstatement] begs a lot of questions," Dowd said. "Because I would like to ask all the questions over where he denied ever betting while he was under oath. I'd like to find out whom he was dealing with and whom he owed money to, and whether he is still indebted to any of those people. I would like to ask him about the cocaine business [in Ohio] and whether he was a cocaine distributor down the line. I would like to know what he has been doing the last 12 years and whether he is still gambling.
"This is serious business, especially since he's told someone he is going to be manager of the Reds. The people of Cincinnati should be assured that all of these things have been checked out."
Neither Roger Greene, Rose's agent, nor Roger Makley, his attorney, returned calls yesterday. Selig refused comment on any issue involving Rose, including if there was an understanding Rose would become manager of the Reds again.
"A person called me [Tuesday] and said he had a conversation two weeks ago with Rose in which Rose said he sat with [Bud] Selig and they came to the agreement if [Rose] made the proper admissions, he would manage the Reds again," Dowd said by phone. "[The Reds] want to get rid of [manager Bob] Boone and bring in Rose as manager."
Reds chief operating officer John Allen, reached in his office, denied that any side deals have ever been talked about.
"There is absolutely nothing to this," Allen said. "We've had no discussions and I'd know about something like this because I am the COO of this team and I am the liaison to ownership."
Allen said he has heard many rumors involving Rose, but that the Reds are not involved in reinstatement negotiations in any way. Allen said if Rose were reinstated he could imagine his organization asking Rose to come to spring training as a special instructor as it does with other former Reds greats such as Johnny Bench, but that "Bob Boone is our manager." Allen said, "absolutely not" when asked if there have been any meetings to discuss making Rose manager should he be reinstated.
News broke this week that Rose met with Selig on Nov. 25 about possible reinstatement. During both the investigation into whether he bet on baseball as manager of the Reds from 1984-89 and in the aftermath of Aug. 23, 1989 when he signed an agreement for a lifetime ban, Rose has steadfastly denied betting on baseball.
Apparently, as a parameter of reinstatement, Rose would make a public acknowledgment in some form that he did, indeed, bet on baseball. If reinstated, Rose would probably become eligible for the Hall of Fame and allowed to work within the major leagues again.
Dowd said he finds that possibility "stunning." Among his litany of problems with Rose, Dowd said is that he has seen no evidence over the past 13 years that Rose "reconfigured his life" as Giamatti asked the baseball great to do at the time of his banishment. Thus, Dowd sees no reason to make Rose the first player ever allowed back from the permanently ineligible list.
"It sends a powerful, powerful, powerful message that if you cross the Rule 21 (gambling on baseball) line, you're not getting back in, baby," Dowd said about keeping Rose out. "I don't understand the rationale for changing that."
- GonzoStyle - 12-12-2002
Quote:put shoeless joe jackson in the hall too. It was never proven he participated in throwing the world series.
He admited he took money, it was never proven that buck weaver took money.
- Teenweek - 12-12-2002
didn't he bat in the mid .300's in that series or something close to it.
- Keyser Soze - 12-12-2002
are we going to dig up shoeless joe and have him admit he threw the series before we admit him?
i say let pete in, there are much bigger scumbags in the hall already like Ty Cobb, he makes Pete seem like a choirgirl.
yes i know this is different cause betting on the game could poison the sanctity of the game but even those who accuse him of betting never said he bet against his team, only for them to win.
- GonzoStyle - 12-12-2002
His stats proved otherwise but his fielding was suspect. He batted over .300 and hit the only homerun in the series on his team but some of his fielding was very suspect. While his offense was undeniably MVP worthy the fact remains he took 10,000 dollars for what he knew was money meant to throw the series.
Barring that fact, it's been over 80 years, I would say let him in already. Jackson could have been the best ball player or atleast in the top 5 of all times. His lifetime batting avg still ranks in the top 10 of all time in a shortened career. Ruth even admitted to modeling his batting after jackson, whom he called the greatest ballplayer he ever saw. Cobb said many times he thought jackson was the best he ever saw, after himself ofcourse.
In his shortened career jackson still put himself in the upper heiarchy of baseball legends, so he definetly should be in the HOF.
- Teenweek - 12-12-2002
The guy who investigated just admitted to the post that he has evidence that rose bet against the reds.
And if you want some facts about Jackson throwing the World Series, I found this website. He batted .375 and had 12 hits in the Series. Doesn't sound like he threw it and according to this site he never accepted money.
shoeless joe jackson
- Keyser Soze - 12-12-2002
If it is proven that Rose bet against the Reds while managing them, i think he is a world class loser and shouldn't have even been allowed on the field at the World Series.
- Goatweed - 12-12-2002
If there truly is proof, then no - keep him out, because that means not only did he do it, but he's been lying about it all this time to the fans, and to himself. If noone can provide any kind of serious evidence, let him the fuck in already. Assuming he's innocent, his name's been dragged through the mud already so he'll forever have an "alleged gambler" moniker.
What I don't understand is this has been going on for 13 years - you mean to tell me that in all this time, noone could step forward with actual proof? Sure, in today's paper it's claimed there is evidence - then why not just present it already? It's not like he's tried to get reinstated before, I think this is just the closest he's come since it's being said that Selig just might do it. So many people say he shouldn't be let in - then why not provide substantial proof as to why to shut everyone up and close the case instead of dragging it on for yeas?
- Keyser Soze - 12-12-2002
forget this kangaroo baseball court bullshit. make it a real case, take it to court, and present the evidence giving both sides a chance to present their case.
- GonzoStyle - 12-12-2002
Joe Jackson admitted on the stand at his Chicago trial that he was promised $20,000 to throw the series but that he received "only" $5,000 from the gamblers.
While Jackson admitted taking the money, he always claimed that he did nothing to earn it. Indeed, point to his .375 batting average during the Series as proof of his commitment. He had 12 hits, including the only home run of the series.
Jackson's defense was where his contribution to the 'fix' came into play, one on play he threw to the wrong base and had another throw that many people thought should have been Jackson’s error but was charged to Cicotte instead.
This is a most interesting fact though, it’s important to understand that the so-called "Black Sox" weren’t trying to throw every game in the series. After losing the first two games, they had to win game three because at that point no one would bet on the White Sox. After throwing the fourth and fifth games in the best-of-nine series, the players were so disgusted by the gamblers’ broken promises that they played to win in the final three games.
It turns out that Jackson was far more effective at the plate in the games the Black Sox were trying to win than in the four they were throwing. He was 8-for-16 with six RBIs and four runs in those games; 4-for-16 with one RBI and one run in the four fixed games. It raises the question as to whether he played his best in all eight games or in only some of the games.
He may have hit .375 but maybe he might have hit .500 if he played 'fair', no?
- Galt - 12-13-2002
I am so sick of this "only if he admits wrongdoing" bullshit. People in this country are so fucking retarded. The jackasses fell for it when Clinton did it a thousand times, all the Kennedys too. It's like that no one cares if you're a scumbag in this country as long as you say "I'm sorry" and bite your lower lip. No matter what someone does, as long as they admit wrong doing, people let it slide, and in Clinton's case they actually like him more because he was such a fuckup but said "I was wrong". Fucking saps
At this point no one gives a shit if he actually did it, they just want him to apologize so they can move on. No one wants facts. They just want people to apologize even if they didn't do anything wrong.
If they guy didn't do it, if there's no proof, let him back in.
If he did do it, or if he says "yup", I did this knowing it was illegal, tough shit. I don't care if he gets down on his knees and begs forgiveness.
- GonzoStyle - 12-13-2002
Dude no one is perfect and people fuck up, everyone makes mistakes in their lifetime. It takes a big man to own up to his shortcomings, it's not like he killed anyone. Clinton got a blowjob, yes he lied but if infidelity was such a high crime how many people would have to be percecuted? The fact that he lied is what made him a scumbag more than the actual act itself. Rose's accomplishments on the field should be what is judged, the fact that he bet on baseball is disgusting but bar him from participation in the sport not the hall of fame.
- Arpikarhu - 12-13-2002
Quote:noone could step forward with actual proof?there is proof and always has been. there are gambling slips in his handwriting. phone records of his having made calls from riverfront to a bookie, etc. if they let him in and he gets into the hall of fme, they should include the fact that he was banned for gambling on his plaque.
- GonzoStyle - 12-13-2002
Isn't there proof he place bets from the dugout phone?
- Goatweed - 12-13-2002
if there is all of this solid proof, why has it never been presented? Lupica made note of this in his column today, and its what I was saying yesterday. Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the person/persons that have this evidence to bring it to light and bury this thing once and for all? The fact that its always mentioned but never shown makes me question just how incriminating the evidence really is.
- Teenweek - 12-13-2002
i think this dowd is a scumbag. For 13 years, it was always said he never bet against his team, but yesterday he says he has evidence that they did. SHow the fucking evidence already.
The Hall of fame is made up of alcoholics, wife beaters, cheaters, drug addicts, kkk members, so it's ridiculous already. He served the sentence. Put him in the Hall and don't ever let him on a baseball field again.
- Arpikarhu - 12-13-2002
Quote:if there is all of this solid proof, why has it never been presented?you are missing the point. it was presented. that is why rose excepted the lifetime ban. part of the agreement was that MLB was not supposed to make the particulars public. rose has to deny he gambeled on baseball to have any chance to get back in. he should either not be allowed back in or it should say banned gambler on his plaque
- Goatweed - 12-13-2002
Quote:you are missing the point. it was presented. that is why rose excepted the lifetime ban. part of the agreement was that MLB was not supposed to make the particulars public. rose has to deny he gambeled on baseball to have any chance to get back in
So what you're saying is there was solid evidence and he accepted his banishment based on it. If so, how can he have been saying - and still say - that he never bet on any game? That's like saying "yeah, they caught me but I never did it" :clueless: