Run-Down Forums

[Hammer]

I don't know if any of you are baseball fans; but Pete Rose and Bud Selig have met to discuss Rose's possible reinstatment. Their lawyers have also been exchanging proposals on the conditions of reinstatement.

Any thoughts???

[Conway]

Not a baseball fan but familiar with Pete Rose .... He performed on the field ... As far as I know he gambled on sports but they have no proof he gambled on baseball ... I think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and was a matter of ego with the former commissioner ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[RangerG]

I was at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown NY about 3 - 4 years ago, and they were anticipating that Pete would be let back into baseball, and then be inducted into the Hall of Fame, along with another controversial baseball great from the early days, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson.

He played with the Phillies and did a good job while he was here, but I guess soon passed from the collective local memory after his ban.

In retrospect, I guess that I cannot complain too loudly about the Blue Muppet mascot in the other string....because we have the Philly Phanatic

Ranger G.
_________________
If I could only run like John Capel...

[Distance_Guru]

I personally think as a player Pete Rose was one of the best ever. I've been known to say that there are players in the hall that don't deserve to be there because of the way they played. Because of the way he played I think there is no doubt Pete deserves to be in the hall. However if he bet on baseball while he was either a player or a manager then he broke one of the biggest rules in the game. If he bet on baseball then he has gotten what he deserved. Same thing goes for shoeless Joe, who was not nearlly the player Rose was. But I have no real say in the matter and I'm almost sure that if Charlie Hustle admits he bet on baseball and apalogizes he will be reinstated and will get into Cooperstown. The main reason for this is Rose is getting up there and is really starting to think about his legacy he doesn't want to go down in history as the greatest player ever banned from baseball (permanantly) and he's ready to try and clean up the mess he's made. And baseball simply wants this entire Pete Rose issue to go away.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Micah Ward]

Sounds kind of familiar to that measures of greatness thread we had going. As a player he deserves the Hall of Fame. But as a person I couldn't support it until he comes completely clean. I could be wrong but I thought there was some pretty good evidence on the betting on baseball issue. I wish I knew where to look it up.
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`

[Distance_Guru]

I saw a thing on sportscenter about this. I guess the FBI (or some other agency) seized several lists of games with picks on them writen in Petes hand writing from Roses home. Along with testimony from the man who claimed to be a bookie Rose owed over $100,000. I'm pretty sure there was more but that's all I can think of off the top of my head but I'd imagine ESPN or CNNSI would have something on it on thier sights.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Conway]

Well if he did bet on baseball then that changes things some what ... I have a hard time with that ... My only hesitation in banning him is that there are so many individuals in Halls of Fame that have done as bad and worse yet remain ... Wife beaters, convicted felons, alcoholics, accused murderers, etc .... Not trying to justify Rose if he did bet on the game, more so pointing out a serioius flaw in the system ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Distance_Guru]

From a legal ramification point of view although never convicted it's widely believed that if Ty Cobb-the man Rose replaced as all time hits leader- didn't kill someone he saw someone killed (I can't recall if who ended up dead but there was a love triangle with his mother, her lover and Cobb's father) . And even if he didn't kill anyone he was about the nastyest person you'd ever meet. But he never bet on games, and as an active member of a baseball team (or any team for that matter) you can't bet on your sport. And that's all there is to it. The investigator that the Commisioners office hired to check out Rose says not only did he have proof Pete bet on baseball, and that he bet on the Reds (the team he was managing). He says given more time he was confident that he could have proven Rose bet against the Reds as well. Although since he didn't that doesn't hold much water.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[RangerG]

Conway,

I tend to agree with you about others in the Hall of Fame being guilty of worse than betting. My only problem with all this is that almost any crime has a limit on the time you serve, except murder. How long should someone be banned or punished? I am thinking that Pete will always have a cloud over his head, even if he gets into the Hall and the ban is lifted. As of this morning, Mike Schmit has come out in support of letting Pete into the Hall, so I guess this thing is getting momentum. As for "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, the whole team was in on that one, Joe just took the rap, plus he was an uneducated farm boy who may have not understood what the implications of his actions were. Ya know there is the reasionable doubt thing

How did this string get started in a runners forum? I am not complaing or anything, just seemed curious.

Ranger G.
_________________
If I could only run like John Capel...

[Hammer]

I don't believe that any player who has recieved a lifetime ban has EVER been reinstated. (I think I read that yesterday.) I do believe that there are certain actions that can and should result in a lifetime ban, and betting on the game is one of those offences.

Fact is that Rose agreed to the ban because he always believed that he would be reinstated. And he was never found guilty of betting on baseball. Because of that fact there is no real proof. Fay Vincent should have set up a timetable for Rose's return or not done the "DEAL" with him in the first place.

Currently I beleive that Selig is bringing this up to bring attention and publicity to baseball during an off time.

[Distance_Guru]

If by proof you mean was it proven in a court of law no, if you mean very incriminating evidence then yes. I read this in an article this morning

[Hammer]

First off: My bad on the Comissioner mix up. Giamatti banned Rose from baseball not Vincent.

We all have OUR OWN opinions on Rose, OJ and any celebrity who has ever been charged with a crime, but they are meaningless. I believe that Giamatti should have just stated strait up that Rose bet on baseball, and that there was enough evidence to prove it and officially ban him for an unforgivable (in baseball) act. Instead he made the "agreement" and Rose was banned with hope of coming back. Hey the guy really believed that he was going to MANAGE in the bigs again.

[Hammer]

Here is another interesting question for our little community.

Is there a difference between the 1919 Blacksox throwing the World Series and a runner throwing a race so that a friend can qualify for an event?

I've seen many HS runners "throw" races (or slow down to help teamates hit qualifying marks) and I am sure the people in this forum can bring up some instances where elite athletes have done the same.

[Conway]

I really don't see any differencein the two as far as moral issues go ... One might say that in one instance there was money to be gained and in the other one is just trying to help a friend ... And i guess you can split hairs that way ... I would opt that if you really want to help the friend you do so during training OR you choose NOT to compete against him (or her) ... In high school I chose to run the sprints and not the hurdles becasue two of my best freinds also ran the hurdles ... I beat them regularly during summer meets and wanted them to have the opportunity to improve and win so at that point I focused only on the sprints ... Twice my coach put me in hurdles races for additional points purposes and each time I beat them (once was at conference) ... Course after conference I pulled out of the hurdles ... But my point being each tiem I was in a race I was in it to win it ... Morally I just don't think you thrwo races, games or anything else ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Distance_Guru]

I see these things as two very different beasts. First off if the two runners are on the same team it could be called stradegy. If for example you have two runners on a team(runner1 and runner2). They are in a districts where only two athletes can quailfy to state and there is runner that can beat runner1 in the mile and is close in the two mile only runner1 is fatigued from the mile. While runner2 can beat everyone else in the state except runner1 and the guy who will win the mile. So inorder to improve his own as well as his teams chances at state runner1 allows runner2 to beat him at the district meet. I look at it sort of like in football where a team is down and the opposition has the ball late in the fourth quarter so instead of letting them run out the clock they allow them to score inorder to get the ball back. Making short term scarifices for long terms goals.

Throwing the world series is another matter. First of all it's done for profit, completly out of greed rather than as a way of helping a teammate get a PR or advance to the next meet. Also the world series is the pennicle, there is nothing higher that a baseball player can hope to win. So throwing that to me is absolutly sacralige.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn