Moral codes have no place in the HOF. Either the player earned it on the field or not. Off field criminal behavior should have nothing to do with it.
NO-they found the defense didn't present enough evidence or proof of guilty to declare he was guilty. they didn't say he didn't do it. he was acquitted bc they could not find reasonable doubt proof by the defense that he did murder them.
NO-they found the defense didn't present enough evidence or proof of guilty to declare he was guilty. they didn't say he didn't do it. he was acquitted bc they could not find reasonable doubt proof by the defense that he did murder them.
that's not true. the signs in every clubhouse saying do not bet on baseball didn't come with the clause or face a lifetime ban. rose admitted he didn't think he would be banned for life in theory or else he would've never signed the agreement. dowd and giamatti duped him and his lawyers into signing it. betting was not an automatic ban from the game. and what lesser punishment did he get? he served time in jail, ruined his legacy and is ineligible to be on the HOF ballot for life, which is the only thing he wants.
That is revisionist history Catfish. He did agree to a lifetime ban. If you think what he plead to is al he did you are sadly mistaken. They had so much more on him and he was well aware of it.
again wazoo he admitted years later he really didn't think it meant "LIFETIME" banishment from the game and permanent ineligibility on the HOF Ballot. he said if he knew in 1990 that he would never be on the HOF ballot - he NEVER would've signed it. he thought for the short-term he would be banned from the game, but not for life. he signed the agreement to save face and keep the peace. he really didn't understand it all. dowd and giamattii knew that and hoodwinked him hook, line and sinker.
worst part is selig promised him a 1 on 1 meeting with himself if rose publically admitted he gambled. rose came out and admitted it and selig still never met with him. why? rose admitted he gambled on the HOF new class announcement day, which took the spotlight off the new HOF class and put it on himself. Selig was livid Rose did it that day and screwed him over. Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt for years afterwards asked Selig where was Rose's 1 on 1 meeting at. He never got it. Baseball could've ended this fiasco years ago and put Rose's name back on the ballot to see if the writers would vote him in or not. I always said do that and note on his plaque he was banned for 25 years for betting on baseball. Problem solved.
Great point. I don't even think they should have a lifetime ban-able offense.....he is not the only player or coach to ever bet and will not be the last. Everything is tainted including each and every one of our own lives. Let he without sin cast the first stone. The hypocrisy is usually most noticeable when examining the lives of the very owners, and self righteous elitists who would crucify Peter Edward Rose.
1 huge issue no one knew was coming so soon in the Pete Rose case...the premature death of Bart Giamatti! Had he lived, although he hated Rose, his stance may have changed or appeals could've been made. However he died and told his predecessor - that buffoon Fay Vincent, to never let up on Rose and keep the hammer on him. Vincent gave way to Selig, who ruled over MLB for 18-20+ yrs.
Im curious is there a crime so heinous that you all would change your stance that it only matters what they did on the field? For example if it turned out Bart Starr had cannibalized 8 people or if LT was found to have a basement full of underage girls locked up. Extreme examples I know but if you want to go wit a less absurd but real conviction what about Darren Sharper. While not a hall member he was nominated despite serving 20 years as a serial rapist. To some degree I ageree on no morality clause when it comes to personality (Ty Cobb) but if convicted of a crime I have no problem with the removal of someone from the Hall (and I personally think they should be). Yes what they do on the field gets them there but its an honor that should be taken away if you do something stupid like murder someone.
I would quote all of your statements, but everything you have written are words from Rose. A person who has been proven to lie continuously. Rose admitted he gambled as a coach and he claimed he only bet on his team to win. All were lies. I'm not going to continue to argue Rose on a Steeler forum. I just don't think it's a valid argument to use a known liar and now that people are dying his story can take on a life of it's own. I for one never want to see him in. He was the Black Sox for many years and many games. IMHO
This is a good question. Just on the possibility of a false charge alone, or a false conviction I don't think a morality clause has any place in HOF discussions at all for anything period. Irrespective of that, though, as I already said I think the HOF should ONLY pertain to on field accomplishments. As I have said when defending Big Ben many times (who I believe was a victim of false allegations), regardless of what anyone thinks happened: "I am a fan of what Ben Roethlisberger does ON THE FIELD." And really, what the hell do I truly, really "know" about anything regarding him off of it? But even if he was proven to be the worst thing imaginable, I would still say it has no bearing on HOF status because it should only, imo, be about the world of sports (not outside of it). This discussion reminds me of a christian school a friend of mine attended. They had a "moral" requirement to their chapter of the National Honor Society.
I got no qualms with that. the hockey hall of fame took out that 1 guy who I think embezzled funds and was a disgrace to an entire nation in Canada. Alan Eagleson or something like that.
That says absolutely nothing. If anything it proves at that time 15 years ago that Rose was continuing to lie.
