I knew, as everyone did, he gambled, but I always maintaned that as long as he keeps his mouth shut, and keeps on denying it, he will get in, and America would not care.

He obviously missed my advice :)

Laws (at least in this country) are passed by elected officials, supposedly for the good of the people who elected them to represent their voices in a democratic republic. In order to change a law, one must show the flaw in the original intent and convince enough elected officials to agree with you.

On the other hand, rules are a collection of regulations made up by individuals or private parties to emphasise the sort of standards they deem acceptable behavior, and to punish behavior that is deemed unacceptable. Rules can be as random and arbitrary as you want them to be, because there is usually no higher power to judge the validity of any particular set of rules. Due to the arbitrariness, one would think it would be a cinch to change a rule, but they’re usually enforced by some pig-headed proto-fascist who insists on the status quo, like your cousin who insists that you can’t use IOU’s for rent in Monopoly.

What does this have to do with Pete Rose and Joe Jackson? Plenty. Because they broke MLB’s Rule 21, MLB decides to punish them, as is their right as an organization that has a self-governing method to determine the scope and severity of such infractions. But I maintain that the act of betting on baseball, while a violation of MLB’s Rule 21, is NOT against the law; otherwise, millions of people would be clogging up the court systems across the country. (Keeping an illegal sports book might be illegal in most jurisdictions, but that’s another distinction that has no relevance here; Rose is a gambler, not a bookie.) The only violation of law that Rose has been convicted of is tax evasion, which baseball doesn’t even care about, just like they don’t care about the drug abuse, assaults, murders and other real laws that have been broken by HoF members. If betting on baseball is the worst thing that a pro ball player can do, then it’s understandable why nobody watches the game anymore. It shows an incredible amount of hypocrisy when would-be felons are allowed to play, just so long as they stay away from the legal sports books.

But hey, as Dennis Miller used to say, It’s just my opinion, I could be wrong…

As best I can figure its that you don’t want people to stop you from gambling just because some prudes think it is moral wrong.

But you don’t want other people to smoke pot because you are a prude who thinks it is morally wrong.

How about this, since neither is hurting anyone else, both the gambler and the pot smoker be allowed to do their business in public and if you don’t think it is a good idea, you present a strong enough argument to your daughter that she doesn’t do what it is that you think she should not do.

Oh yeah, and before you brand me a pot-smoking hippie, I’ve never smoked in my life. I just love freedom…and baseball.

But if I tell her not to smoke pot, I don’t want her to see people who are. Even if she makes the decision not to, I don’t want her to have to deal with the impressions that people who smoke pot give out(showing that it’s okay).

She’s not stupid, but if someone she looked up to was doing something she thought before was wrong, she’d either think less of that person or that that thing was more okay than it was before. And I would hope not the latter.

The question from there, after all this time, is “should he be still paying the consequences”? Not did he do wrong? It’s already established. The MLB said he did.

Secondly, adding to the whole subject. Kids aren’t stupid, but they are impressionable. If they see a role model do something, they will do it too. It’s not that the kids are gonna go out and “blow their lunch money” if they see Pete Rose do it. But, if you make it seem okay to break rules and still get rewarded for it, eventually, kids will pick up on it.

Your argument makes me sick.

And what is all this about “think of the children”? Who cares if the children see that someone has been gambling, its not like if they see it they are gonna go right out and blow their lunch money. Thats just like saying that we arent allowed to do something because someone elses children might get the wrong idea, that rediculous. Kids are smarter than many give them credit for. Just like that grown adults are arrested for drug use because “they are a bad influence on children”. I agree that children dont need to be doing drugs, but that should keep grown adults from doing it?

People that say not to do something “because of the children” make me sick.

Unfortunately, we don’t know for sure, because baseball cut a deal with Rose and did not hold a full trial. Now they can say he did, he can say he didn’t and the public does not know who to believe. They should settle the thing once and for all and close up this loophole of no one knowing for sure whether or not he did it.

That said, Jon Dowd now says Pete might have bet against the Reds. That would be unforgivable if true. But I don’t know if I trust Dowd. It seems to me he has an ax to grind. And he didn’t say he had evidence of that, just that he would have had evidence if he had more time to find out.

Dowd then said that if Rose bet on the Reds on some days and didn’t on other days, it sent a message to gamblers — in essence Dowd believes Rose might have been getting a little bit by tipping some guys off that certain games didn’t look good for Cincy. But Dowd added that Rose would never bet on days Mario Soto pitched. Still, we have no evidence.

At any rate, I hope they let him into the Hall of Fame. But he shouldn’t work in baseball. He’s a lousy manager, too.

My seven year old daughter saw a picture of Michael Jackson in the hard rock cafe and said “he used to be black”? Do you really think that her generation knows who Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe is and what they did?

so what if he only bet on his team. did he have the same incentive to win on the nights he didn’t bet ? would he save a reliever until the next night when he thought he had a better chance to win and could place a bet ?

pete rose should be forgiven for his sins. part of forgiveness includes asking for it, and contrition. for the past 13 years, rose has been intolerably arrogant and denied all charges. after reading the dowd report, does ANYONE doubt that rose bet on baseball ??? i didn’t think so.

sorry pete, sell autographed balls, appear outside of ballparks, and portray yourself as a victim. don’t expect to get in the hall. you don’t deserve it.

Without exception, when Pete Rose would appear on TV or would come up in converstaion, each of us would say “Pete Rose doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. He’s a gambler, and there’s no place for gamblers in the Hall. Think of the children. People bring their children to the Hall of Fame. Would you want them to look up to someone who has gambled?”

None of us really thought that, and of course it is ridiculous, but it drove our friend crazy and he’d get all worked up. I suspect if Pete’s ban is lifted, each of us will call him and lament. “Think of the children,” we’ll say.

Rose is a moron.

The HOF is filled with men of less than desirable behavior, what’s one more? The HOF recognizes ON-field accomplishments, if 4000+ hits doesn’t deserve to be in the Hall, then what does?

Was it still wrong? yes. Does he deserve to be in the Hall? I think so.

Shoeless Joe, again according to all I’ve read, was accused of (essentially) betting against his team.

Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. Shoeless Joe — if guilty as charged — does not.

There are also laws against gambling on sports (though I don’t approve of them) and against gambling on sports by sports participants (I’m not crazy about them, but I can live with them).