RI something Pete Rose

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

MLB has much more resources than Rose and is contiuously abusing it. If you want to defend MLB then you are entitled to. Rose is no saint, but MLB strongarmed Rose into a bad deal, and contiously igonores the feelings of the public when it comes to his reinstatement. Rose said he was wrong, MLB refuses to admit that they were wrong in banning Rose. MLB is on the wrong side of this PR war and on the wrong side of this ethical war.

MLB didn't strongarm Pete Rose into anything.

Go read the Dowd Report. I have. Every effing page, at 228 pages.

The evidence is overwhelming. No rational person, having read this IMPARTIAL report can conclude anything other than Pete Rose had a severe gambling addiction, and betting on baseball games was a big part of it.

When Rose was presented with the MOUNTAINS of evidence, he meekly and quietly accepted his banishment. He didn't go to lawyers, or the courts, or fight it in any way, other than to try to convince gullible people that he was innocent.

Here...I will help to enlighten you:

https://www.thedowdreport.com/report.pdf

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

I'm not sure you realize it, but you literally do this in every post you have with someone you disagree with. You put words in their mouth and then laugh as if they said it instead of you. It's both transparent and childish but hey, you do you..

Nah just the intellectually lazy ones, for example the ones stanning the guy who everyone knows bet on his team. What you’re seeing is a complete lack of respect. You are correct; I have absolutely no respect for Rose or his fanboys. He was a jerk of a person who played the game the wrong way, who bet on games his team played (cry all you want about how he only bet on the Reds to win but when you’re picking and choosing your games, you might as well be throwing the ones you’re not betting on), and who SA’d a 15 year old girl.

Just in case this wasn’t transparent enough for you: me no likey Charlie Hustle.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Nah just the intellectually lazy ones, for example the ones stanning the guy who everyone knows bet on his team. What you’re seeing is a complete lack of respect. You are correct; I have absolutely no respect for Rose or his fanboys. He was a jerk of a person who played the game the wrong way, who bet on games his team played (cry all you want about how he only bet on the Reds to win but when you’re picking and choosing your games, you might as well be throwing the ones you’re not betting on), and who SA’d a 15 year old girl.

Just in case this wasn’t transparent enough for you: me no likey Charlie Hustle.

So you are dancing on his grave?

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Pretty sure that has to be a joke.

Yeah, it's also false equivalency. A fan betting on a sporting event isn't remotely the same as a participant betting on it.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Yeah, it's also false equivalency. A fan betting on a sporting event isn't remotely the same as a participant betting on it.

Of course, but that isn't the eye being satirically poked.

I am not good with all the hard connections between MLB and gambling. At least I haven't seen any in-game prop bet ads shilled by the on-air talent lately.

[Amazin69]

And, of course, there was the whole bit where Pete might have accepted the ban not cover up any game-fixing possibilities, but because his pal Bertolini had told John Dowd about…other things.

Dowd claimed in a 2015 radio interview that Rose had underage girls delivered to him at spring training and committed statutory rape.

In the interview, with a station in West Chester, Pennsylvania, Dowd said, "Michael Bertolini told us, you know, he not only ran bets, but ran young girls down at spring training, ages 12 to 14. Isn't that lovely? So that's statutory rape every time you do that."

Rose, of course, promptly sued Dowd for Defamation in the Pennsylvania courts, calling the allegation "entirely false in every respect."

Which, naturally, led to an Ohio woman coming forth in 2017.

A sworn statement by an unidentified woman, contained in a motion filed Monday in John Dowd's defense against Pete Rose's defamation lawsuit, alleges that Rose had a sexual relationship with the woman for several years in the 1970s, beginning before she turned 16.

In the majority of states, including Ohio -- where both the woman and Rose lived at the time -- the age of legal consent is 16, so her allegation amounts to statutory rape.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Rose acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with the woman in court documents made public Monday, but he said his information and belief was that it started when she was 16. He was 34, married and the father of two children in 1975, when he says he began having sex with the woman, referred to in the filing as "Jane Doe." Rose said he does not recall how long the relationship lasted.

The woman's account does not raise the prospect of a criminal charge for Rose, as it is well past Ohio's statute of limitations. She said they also had sex outside of Ohio when she was 16 or younger, but didn't specify the states, and Rose said their sexual relationship was confined to Ohio. In some states, such as Florida, the legal age of consent is 18.

So, yeah, even if you think merely gambling on your own team shouldn't be a bannable offense, and even if you claim there's no proof that Pete fixed games and so he shouldn't be denied the Hall (regardless of his voluntarily accepting the permanent ban, extending beyond death), there's still a pretty good case for the Hall denying Pete on "character" grounds, IMO.

(Rose did not win the defamation suit against Dowd, btw.)

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

And, of course, there was the whole bit where Pete might have accepted the ban not cover up any game-fixing possibilities, but because his pal Bertolini had told John Dowd about…other things.



Rose, of course, promptly sued Dowd for Defamation in the Pennsylvania courts, calling the allegation "entirely false in every respect."

Which, naturally, led to an Ohio woman coming forth in 2017.


••••••••••••••••••••••••••


So, yeah, even if you think merely gambling on your own team shouldn't be a bannable offense, and even if you claim there's no proof that Pete fixed games and so he shouldn't be denied the Hall (regardless of his voluntarily accepting the permanent ban, extending beyond death), there's still a pretty good case for the Hall denying Pete on "character" grounds, IMO.

(Rose did not win the defamation suit against Dowd, btw.)

Rose's defense reminds me of a comedian talking about how an investigative report saind Taco Bell's meat was only 50% actual ground beef & Taco Bell put out an ad "disputing" the report by claiming it was actually 80%. Neither actually doing themselves any favor.

[Syd Thrift]

I mean, speaking of comedians, the whole situation reminds me an awful lot of Bill Cosby. Old timers used to love talking up Rose but then there started to be rumors and soon those rumors turned out to not so much be rumors...

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I mean, speaking of comedians, the whole situation reminds me an awful lot of Bill Cosby. Old timers used to love talking up Rose but then there started to be rumors and soon those rumors turned out to not so much be rumors...

Yeah, but how many Cosby fans come out of the woodwork whenever BC is mentioned& try to dispute whether he did it or not or if it was all that significant. That's why I describe it as cult.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yeah, but how many Cosby fans come out of the woodwork whenever BC is mentioned& try to dispute whether he did it or not or if it was all that significant. That's why I describe it as cult.

This is true. Speaking as someone who loved Cosby when I was growing up - all his stuff around during my lifetime, Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, the Cosby Show, Picture Pages, his standup (which I will grant, my friend and I went back and watched some of his stuff in the early 2000s and wow it aged badly), even that later show he did in the 90s with Phylicia Rashad and Doug E Doug - when stuff came out, my generation was like "oh wow" followed by "damn, guys have been saying this for a while though haven't they?" followed by "welp, there's my TV dad up in flames". There just wasn't this constant, ever-present denial the way there has been with Rose, you're absolutely right. He didn't even need the additional scandal on top of the one he was embroiled in to see him taken down.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

This is true. Speaking as someone who loved Cosby when I was growing up - all his stuff around during my lifetime, Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, the Cosby Show, Picture Pages, his standup (which I will grant, my friend and I went back and watched some of his stuff in the early 2000s and wow it aged badly), even that later show he did in the 90s with Phylicia Rashad and Doug E Doug - when stuff came out, my generation was like "oh wow" followed by "damn, guys have been saying this for a while though haven't they?" followed by "welp, there's my TV dad up in flames". There just wasn't this constant, ever-present denial the way there has been with Rose, you're absolutely right. He didn't even need the additional scandal on top of the one he was embroiled in to see him taken down.

For me, Cosby was FAR worse than Rose or Diddy, or even OJ.

Cosby was a good dude that everyone loved, until he wasn't.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Rose's defense reminds me of a comedian talking about how an investigative report saind Taco Bell's meat was only 50% actual ground beef & Taco Bell put out an ad "disputing" the report by claiming it was actually 80%. Neither actually doing themselves any favor.

Like trying to base a defense around distinguishing between being a Nazi sympathizer and being a Nazi empathizer…

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

For me, Cosby was FAR worse than Rose or Diddy, or even OJ.

Cosby was a good dude that everyone loved, until he wasn't.

Well, OJ murdered 2 people. So that goes w/o saying.

As far as I know, I haven't heard of Rose drugging men, women boys & girls & then raping them. Then threatening to kill other people. Rumors being he may have actually carried out those threats somewhere. If those rumors are ever substantiated he "jumps" over the Juice.

Cosby had the "decency" to limit his drug induced rapes to adults & one gender. "Kudos" to him.

Rose, from what I hear. apparently had consensual sex w/someone who hadn't reach the age of concession. Thus breaking his marriage vows.

So we can carve in his gravestone, "He was no Cosby, Diddy or OJ".

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Well, OJ murdered 2 people. So that goes w/o saying.

As far as I know, I haven't heard of Rose drugging men, women boys & girls & then raping them. Then threatening to kill other people. Rumors being he may have actually carried out those threats somewhere. If those rumors are ever substantiated he "jumps" over the Juice.

Cosby had the "decency" to limit his drug induced rapes to adults & one gender. "Kudos" to him.

Rose, from what I hear. apparently had consensual sex w/someone who hadn't reach the age of concession. Thus breaking his marriage vows.

So we can carve in his gravestone, "He was no Cosby, Diddy or OJ".

Hard to rank these guys. I could throw in any number of sports murderers onto the list. Hell..even Ty Cobb was supposed to have beaten a guy to death in a public park.

[djc]

Wow this has gotten a little off base. RIP Pete watching you play ball in Cincy was a treat. As for the betting? I once called a sports radio station and asked what is the difference between Pete Rose and the cheating Astros? My call started with I can hear a strange noise coming from my surround speakers when the Astros are up at bat?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by djc

Wow this has gotten a little off base. RIP Pete watching you play ball in Cincy was a treat. As for the betting? I once called a sports radio station and asked what is the difference between Pete Rose and the cheating Astros? My call started with I can hear a strange noise coming from my surround speakers when the Astros are up at bat?

The difference is Rose bet on his own team, violating a long-standing cardinal rule that carried a severe punishment for the infraction: permanent ineligibility. Rose knew the rule and the punishment it carried, and bet on his own team anyway.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The difference is Rose bet on his own team, violating a long-standing cardinal rule that carried a severe punishment for the infraction: permanent ineligibility. Rose knew the rule and the punishment it carried, and bet on his own team anyway.

Do you honestly think, that with the Astros cheating in order to win, that players and coaches did not also bet on their team to win?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Do you honestly think, that with the Astros cheating in order to win, that players and coaches did not also bet on their team to win?

Then find the evidence, and those players and team officials will be gone permanently too. That others may have committed a baseball crime does not excuse Rose having done so and getting caught.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

.........That others may have committed a baseball crime does not excuse Rose having done so and getting caught.

Rose fans can't get this in their heads.

Originally Posted by Doobie Brothers

But what a fool believes, he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
Than nothing at all

-What a Fool Believes

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Do you honestly think, that with the Astros cheating in order to win, that players and coaches did not also bet on their team to win?

I would positively love to see the evidence that the Astros bet on those ballgames. Please, by all means, provide it. Nothing would make me happier as a Mariners fan than seeing several Astros banned from baseball for life.

Oh, this was just conjecture and you're just trying to draw a false equivalency between a thing that is absolutely 100% against the rules of baseball and a thing which, while incredibly crappy, is not literally spelled out on top of every single locker room door in the major leagues? My bad, I thought - hoped - this was serious for a second.