So I had to read that whole article to find out "because they just do."...

To keep their junk covered and warm.

I always thought it was because of player/managers. So I'm just sticking with that.

Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

Trackball: sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

So much this.

Ah, Bob Greene, the guy who used to write for the Tribune and was then fired after he admitted he had a sexual encounter with a high school student he had interviewed. (Not to mention being one of the schmaltziest schmucks to write a column, usually about how everything had gone downhill since he graduated high school in the 60's.)

Trackball: sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

Apparently gambling is a greater threat to the game's integrity than bio-chemical enhancement.

Pete Rose was placing bets on games involving his own team. That's pretty farking bad and deserving of the lifetime ban.

is confused by this article

UNC_Samurai: Trackball: sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

Apparently gambling is a greater threat to the game's integrity than bio-chemical enhancement.

ThisNameSux: Pete Rose was placing bets on games involving his own team. That's pretty farking bad and deserving of the lifetime ban.



/Shoeless Joe need to be let in before they can think about admitting Rose

AltGuy: Pete Rose was placing bets on games involving his own team. That's pretty farking bad and deserving of the lifetime ban.

Wow, we actually agree on something.

I mean, sure, as far as I'm aware he was only betting on his team to win but there are many things a manager could do in order to give his team a better chance at winning a particular game that would hurt their chances of winning the other 161 games.

Take the bet.

/1823
//2,892
///1948
////Appalachian State

If I could wear pajamas to work, I would too.

UNC_Samurai: Apparently gambling is a greater threat to the game's integrity than bio-chemical enhancement.

Definitely. Steroids are the same sort of offense as scuffing the baseball or using TV cameras to steal signs. It's cheating, but it's not going to destroy the sport. The very notion, however, that the games might be rigged has the potential to topple the sport completely. There is a strict and impermeable division between players and managers and gambling. Mickey Mantle was banned from baseball (later reinstated) for simply working as a promoter for a hotel/casino AFTER HE RETIRED. It's not like Rose didn't have plenty of warning.

That he's acted like a child ever since, lied about his involvement in gambling repeatedly, and that he camps out every year at Cooperstown to sell his autograph to suckers and host a personal pity party inclines me in no way to sympathize with his plight.

OK but why does Owen Coyle wear his team's strip for Premier League games? Just looks like a cock...

Hoban Washburne: Certainly PEDs are more significant that putting vaseline on a baseball

Why?

JosephFinn: Ah, Bob Greene, the guy who used to write for the Tribune and was then fired after he admitted he had a sexual encounter with a high school student he had interviewed. (Not to mention being one of the schmaltziest schmucks to write a column, usually about how everything had gone downhill since he graduated high school in the 60's.)

Oh dear God, this. He must have gotten about 12,000 columns out of the Baby Richard case alone (I think Bob Watch did some sort of calculation) and he had this disturbing affinity for any case that involved child abuse; he'd repeat the details over and over and over until you really started to wonder about him. His downfall was embarrassingly schadenfreudelicious. I had no idea he was even still working, but even schmaltzy hacks have to eat, I suppose. This column isn't too bad for him.

sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

No. Nobody remembers Pete Rose, and with very good reason. He was a stupid man, and quite a bit of a dick. Best to forget people like that.


Trackball:
Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Rose was caught betting on games, which he knew was a bannable offense. He was banned for betting on games. End of story. Cheating is a separate issue, and has nothing (at least officially) to do with Pete Rose.

How people can defend him has always been beyond me. He knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences, and he did it anyway. His performance as a player/manager doesn't make a damn bit of difference, nor should it. The fact that others have done worse things without consequence also has no bearing on Pete Rose, though it certainly doesn't help Selig's image any that he hasn't thrown out more bums like Rose.

Balchinian: How people can defend him has always been beyond me. He knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences, and he did it anyway.

And he voluntarily signed his own ban so they wouldn't investigate any further.

FriarReb98: Wait. So there's no rule saying what managers have to wear? Then why do (did) people bother making a big deal when Francona just goes out there in sweats and baseball pants then? Hell, I think line coaches should just wear something different anyway to differentiate them in the first place....

\always thought it was retarded to complain about stuff like that
\\probably was some Yankee being a dick or something

I just figured that was more because the hoodie made him look like a schlub.

Balchinian: sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

No. Nobody remembers Pete Rose, and with very good reason. He was a stupid man, and quite a bit of a dick. Best to forget people like that.


Trackball:
Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Rose was caught betting on games, which he knew was a bannable offense. He was banned for betting on games. End of story. Cheating is a separate issue, and has nothing (at least officially) to do with Pete Rose.

How people can defend him has always been beyond me. He knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences, and he did it anyway. His performance as a player/manager doesn't make a damn bit of difference, nor should it. The fact that others have done worse things without consequence also has no bearing on Pete Rose, though it certainly doesn't help Selig's image any that he hasn't thrown out more bums like Rose.

I'm not defending what he did but I have never seen anyone in the last 25+ years, play with more passion and pure talent as a hitter. It was a lot of fun to watch him play the game. And yeah, I don't think I've seen a bigger jerk either. Considering Barry Bonds, that's saying a lot! Does his accomplishments say he belongs in the hall...absolutely. He agreed to the ban though; he needs to stand by it. Selig definitely needs to throw a few more bums out.

Aaaaaaahhhhhh
Mcqwire is shooting up everyone!
Listen to me listen to mmmmeeeee!!!!!

UNC_Samurai: Trackball: sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

Apparently gambling is a greater threat to the game's integrity than bio-chemical enhancement.

Rose did more than just gamble, he was throwing games. The FBI was investigating an East Coast crime family and in the course of that investigation they found out that Rose had run up a couple of million dollars in gambling debt with them. So to pay it off they made Rose fix games so the Reds would lose. The FBI didn't make this public and went to MLB with the information. MLB decided to go with the life time ban and say it was for gambling instead of letting the whole truth out and hurting the credibility of the game.

Menace II Sobriety: So I had to read that whole article to find out "because they just do."...

That's baseball.

puckrock2000: /Shoeless Joe need to be let in before they can think about admitting Rose

I think the punishment was fair since he was aware of (and thus a conspirator in) the fix even if he didn't participate in it. But I also think that the ban should be lifted. It's called a "lifetime" ban not a "forever" ban. It's the same with Rose. I hope the commissioner at the time of Rose's passing lifts the ban.

FriarReb98: Wait. So there's no rule saying what managers have to wear?



/is still waiting for a good answer to that question.

The difference between baseball and football according to George Carlin (new window)

Hoban Washburne: Dafatone: Hoban Washburne: Certainly PEDs are more significant that putting vaseline on a baseball

Why?

Well maybe not in terms of competitive advantage, but it's certainly more harmful to the players. And when everyone else is doing it and you're competing for millions in contract money, the pressures to juice up are really high. Either way, my point was that there's a big difference between cheating to win and throwing a game.

Agreed there. I just get annoyed because people have been cheating since baseball began, and only just now with PEDs is it a huge moral issue.

/Gaylord Perry's HoF plaque references spitballs. Or the threat of them.

JosephFinn: Ah, Bob Greene, the guy who used to write for the Tribune and was then fired after he admitted he had a sexual encounter with a high school student he had interviewed.

Was she hot at least?

Balchinian: sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

No. Nobody remembers Pete Rose, and with very good reason. He was a stupid man, and quite a bit of a dick. Best to forget people like that.


Trackball:
Yeah, that guy that obviously made someone in upper upper management really mad. So when they caught him doing something against the rules he got a lifetime ban. Unlike people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CHEATED IN BASEBALL who are now coaches and standing in the dugout during a World Series.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Rose was caught betting on games, which he knew was a bannable offense. He was banned for betting on games. End of story. Cheating is a separate issue, and has nothing (at least officially) to do with Pete Rose.

How people can defend him has always been beyond me. He knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences, and he did it anyway. His performance as a player/manager doesn't make a damn bit of difference, nor should it. The fact that others have done worse things without consequence also has no bearing on Pete Rose, though it certainly doesn't help Selig's image any that he hasn't thrown out more bums like Rose.

I loved Pete Rose as a player, but he sucked as a manager. If you think he could affect the outcome of a game (which was investigated and found to be not a credible accusation), you don't know much about the guy. He couldn't affect the outcome of a game if the other team never showed up - he was a horrible manager.

Having said that, I don't have much of a problem with the ban. My problem is proportionality - Shoeless Joe and the other 7 took cash, booted baseballs, and threw games. Obviously, whether Shoeless Joe took money to throw games is in question as his performance in that series shows otherwise.

But Pete didn't take money to throw games. He bet on his team to win and the evidence supports that. That is a big difference and I don't believe the punishment should be the same as the guys who threw a World Series. Pete was just another dumbass gambler who was really bad at it.

I say this as someone who was really let down with his admission because I defended him. But we don't don't send people to the electric chair because they killed someone, but not rising to the level of the douchebag who the electric chair was created for. there are multiple levels of punishment in almost every walk of life. Pete Rose got more than he deserved.

And let's be honest - MLB is not an innocent victim. They haven't enforced something as simple as the legal strike zone since Mountain Landis was in charge. They tolerate performance enhancements while pretending they don't. They act like players committing crimes and doing illegal drugs haven't broken the rule of associating with unsavory characters. People are quick to point out "rules are rules" as long as it only applies to Pete Rose.

He's paid his price - let him in.

Because they've always done it isn't good enough?
Baseball, in case nobody has noticed, is very resistant to change. It is full of traditions which have no written rules governing them but are practiced religiously nonetheless.
The fact that the author asks the question makes me wonder if he's not some sort of ass clown.

ongbok: The FBI didn't make this public and went to MLB with the information. MLB decided to go with the life time ban and say it was for gambling instead of letting the whole truth out and hurting the credibility of the game.

Citation?

Balchinian: sandogtim: Anyone remember Pete Rose? 1B/Manager...Reds...1984-1986

No. Nobody remembers Pete Rose, and with very good reason. He was a stupid man, and quite a bit of a dick. Best to forget people like that.

...Ty Cobb's in the Hall of Fame, and he was a stupid dick. Try again.

red5ish: Because they've always done it isn't good enough?

No. In fact, it's a lousy reason.

Before the uniform rule, all the managers would try to outdo each other with designer clothes and it became a big distraction.

IlGreven: red5ish: Because they've always done it isn't good enough?

No. In fact, it's a lousy reason.

It's traditional. There would have to be a pretty compelling reason NOT to continue doing it, which there isn't.

Farkomatic: But Pete didn't take money to throw games. He bet on his team to win and the evidence supports that. That is a big difference and I don't believe the punishment should be the same as the guys who threw a World Series. Pete was just another dumbass gambler who was really bad at it.

If you bet on some games while managing, you may put more effort into winning those than other games. You might put your closer in early, or something like that. If the gambling may have any impact on how you're managing, it is a problem.

Dafatone: Farkomatic: But Pete didn't take money to throw games. He bet on his team to win and the evidence supports that. That is a big difference and I don't believe the punishment should be the same as the guys who threw a World Series. Pete was just another dumbass gambler who was really bad at it.

If you bet on some games while managing, you may put more effort into winning those than other games. You might put your closer in early, or something like that. If the gambling may have any impact on how you're managing, it is a problem.

So what's your take on the "Suck for Luck" schtick? Isn't that exactly the same thing? Is it only OK when the owner makes out good? What about the Expos sucking in order to split from Montreal? Is it okay when a move is involved?

Every decision in sports from a draft pick to your seamstress (see also: Natinals) is a friggin gamble,

Also not every game in the MLB season is "played to win" if so a hamstring pull wouldn't sit a guy like Pujols for some backup from the Bus league, to say that every manager/player is out to win EVERY one of 162 games is complete and utter bullshiat, they are out to manage a long season filled with injuries, trades, etc. Not every decision is made to make sure you win that game on that night, but that you win enough games to make the playoffs......THEN every decision is made to make sure you win that game on that night.

There should be more concern if Rose actually bet like he said he did, on every game they played, that's a good way to burn a team out and make sure they don't make the playoffs.

The only other thing would be he was tipping off people by not betting when weaker pitchers were in, to that I say...so farking what? Who cares if a bookie knows that Rose thought a guy sucked, today we have 8000000000000 ways of finding that out in a instant. There is probably a way of finding out what the starter ate for lunch and how big his pre game shiat was, and what his ERA is on Wednesday nights against right handed heavy teams when he eats that exact same meal and shiats out ~2% of the gross amount of shiat in the shiatter. Now we just call it the "Information Age"

Put him in, baseball farked themselves of any integrity when Bonds took the HR lead.

JosephFinn: Ah, Bob Greene, the guy who used to write for the Tribune and was then fired after he admitted he had a sexual encounter with a high school student he had interviewed. (Not to mention being one of the schmaltziest schmucks to write a column, usually about how everything had gone downhill since he graduated high school in the 60's.)

I see I'm not needed here. Carry on.

It makes it easier to scratch your balls?

It makes it easier to scratch your balls?

Precisely. If you see an old coot in a baseball uniform scratching his balls and spitting tobacco, it becomes automatically acceptable. To see the same person doing that in a three-piece suit, would seem...odd.