Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   It was 55 years ago, babe   (cbc.ca) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Major League Baseball, Philadelphia Phillies, Cincinnati Reds, World Series, Pete Rose, World Series champion Phillies team, 1980 World Series, first time  
•       •       •

838 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Aug 2022 at 2:50 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-08-08 2:07:49 AM  
Rose followed up with "ya got a problem with that, sugartits?"
 
2022-08-08 5:44:09 AM  
Yeah, he really seems like he learned his lesson... Good guy.
 
2022-08-08 5:54:21 AM  
I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.
 
2022-08-08 7:28:37 AM  
fark Pete Rose.

Mario Soto wants his arm back.
 
2022-08-08 8:11:30 AM  

Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.


I tend to agree but he shouldn't be an asshole about it.
 
2022-08-08 8:29:47 AM  

Dafatone: fark Pete Rose.

Mario Soto wants his arm back.


And Ray Fosse wants his career back.
 
2022-08-08 8:40:49 AM  

Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.


Didn't he admit to it? His remorseful response was, "I thought she was 16." That's paraphrased, but pretty well discussed.
 
2022-08-08 8:42:17 AM  

Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.


The man farked a 15 year old when he was ~35. It's not like we're talking about a parking ticket here
 
2022-08-08 8:46:14 AM  

Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.


And we just discovered Cardinal Bernard Law's FARK ID.
 
2022-08-08 9:11:41 AM  

Muta: Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.

I tend to agree but he shouldn't be an asshole about it.


Pete Rose is incapable of being anything other than an asshole - it's who and what he is to his very core.
 
2022-08-08 9:22:05 AM  
Who does he think he is, a Kennedy?
 
2022-08-08 10:07:01 AM  
I'm sure Rose and a lot of other athletes, musicians, actors, just regular dudes of that era had sex with underage girls.
 
2022-08-08 10:28:51 AM  

Rex_Banner: Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.

The man farked a 15 year old when he was ~35. It's not like we're talking about a parking ticket here


How could anyone prove or disprove allegations at this point?  That is why the statute of limitations exists because at some point it becomes too difficult to pursue matters.  Now certainly Mr. Rose could have been more delicate about the situation, but when has that ever happened?
 
2022-08-08 10:34:03 AM  

Daedalus27: Rex_Banner: Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.

The man farked a 15 year old when he was ~35. It's not like we're talking about a parking ticket here

How could anyone prove or disprove allegations at this point?  That is why the statute of limitations exists because at some point it becomes too difficult to pursue matters.  Now certainly Mr. Rose could have been more delicate about the situation, but when has that ever happened?


He admitted he did: https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/all-time-hits-leader-pete-rose-admits-sexual-tryst-teen-article-1.3372777. What's there to disprove?
 
2022-08-08 10:44:57 AM  

youngandstupid: Daedalus27: Rex_Banner: Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.

The man farked a 15 year old when he was ~35. It's not like we're talking about a parking ticket here

How could anyone prove or disprove allegations at this point?  That is why the statute of limitations exists because at some point it becomes too difficult to pursue matters.  Now certainly Mr. Rose could have been more delicate about the situation, but when has that ever happened?

He admitted he did: https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/all-time-hits-leader-pete-rose-admits-sexual-tryst-teen-article-1.3372777. What's there to disprove?


No, he admitted he had a relationship with her in the article provided.  Not her age or circumstances.  Again, how does anyone defend themselves from an allegation 50+ years ago in a he said/she said case?  Did he do it, probably, but after so much time, it is impossible to know for certain.
 
2022-08-08 11:09:36 AM  
It's math. He didn't dispute her time-table. If that's the case, then she was underage, regardless of what he claims to have thought at the time. Also, even if she was 16 (and by the time-table that he's not disputing, she wasn't even 16), he was 35 and married. He's at best a creepy pile of shiat.
 
2022-08-08 11:39:50 AM  

Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.


Well, he was at an event celebrating something good he did 42 years ago, so I guess at least 42 years.
 
2022-08-08 12:40:27 PM  
Well, there go his chances at a Hall of Fame spot.
 
2022-08-08 1:27:39 PM  
I kinda wish we could just ignore Pete Rose instead of having lengthy discussions about how much of a shiatbag he is.
 
2022-08-08 2:02:53 PM  

youngandstupid: It's math. He didn't dispute her time-table. If that's the case, then she was underage, regardless of what he claims to have thought at the time. Also, even if she was 16 (and by the time-table that he's not disputing, she wasn't even 16), he was 35 and married. He's at best a creepy pile of shiat.


His lawyer did dispute the time table stating the relationship started at age 16 and was in Ohio exclusively.  That is different from her allegations in 2017 that in 1973 when she was 14 or 15 she had a relationship with Pete Rose in Ohio and elsewhere. So there is a dispute about the circumstances of the relationship which would go to whether he broke the law. How the heck can you reasonably trust recollections and allegations 44 years in the past when they were made in 2017? Witnesses are certainly hazy if they are even alive anymore, evidence is lost with time, it is unfair to all involved to proceed on the matter given the limitations of the circumstances.

They are not litigating whether he is a creep or a bastard, that determination can be made by the individual.  No one is saying it was appropriate or proper for a married individual with kids to start another relationship with a minor whether they are 14, 15, 16, or any age around that time.  It is exploitative with a power dynamic that is prone to abuse at best and criminal at worst. The issue is of liability for an alleged civil act or potentially criminal charges that occurred almost 50 years ago presently and the statute of limitations precludes a case of that nature.
 
2022-08-08 2:07:22 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-08 2:25:34 PM  

youngandstupid: Yeah, he really seems like he learned his lesson... Good guy.


Years ago back in the 1970s, I was a huge fan of the Big Red Machine and my favorite player was Johnny Bench, but I like Pete Rose as well. So it was a little disheartening to find out back then that Bench really disliked Rose. Then the whole crap about Rose's divorce, under-age sex, and, of course, the betting scandal started hitting the fan.

\'Course I realize Bench hasn't exactly been a saint either - having been married/divorced four times.
 
2022-08-08 2:29:21 PM  

Daedalus27: youngandstupid: It's math. He didn't dispute her time-table. If that's the case, then she was underage, regardless of what he claims to have thought at the time. Also, even if she was 16 (and by the time-table that he's not disputing, she wasn't even 16), he was 35 and married. He's at best a creepy pile of shiat.

His lawyer did dispute the time table stating the relationship started at age 16 and was in Ohio exclusively.  That is different from her allegations in 2017 that in 1973 when she was 14 or 15 she had a relationship with Pete Rose in Ohio and elsewhere. So there is a dispute about the circumstances of the relationship which would go to whether he broke the law. How the heck can you reasonably trust recollections and allegations 44 years in the past when they were made in 2017? Witnesses are certainly hazy if they are even alive anymore, evidence is lost with time, it is unfair to all involved to proceed on the matter given the limitations of the circumstances.

They are not litigating whether he is a creep or a bastard, that determination can be made by the individual.  No one is saying it was appropriate or proper for a married individual with kids to start another relationship with a minor whether they are 14, 15, 16, or any age around that time.  It is exploitative with a power dynamic that is prone to abuse at best and criminal at worst. The issue is of liability for an alleged civil act or potentially criminal charges that occurred almost 50 years ago presently and the statute of limitations precludes a case of that nature.


Well it's a good thing we're not in court.
 
2022-08-08 2:48:14 PM  

Daedalus27: youngandstupid: It's math. He didn't dispute her time-table. If that's the case, then she was underage, regardless of what he claims to have thought at the time. Also, even if she was 16 (and by the time-table that he's not disputing, she wasn't even 16), he was 35 and married. He's at best a creepy pile of shiat.

His lawyer did dispute the time table stating the relationship started at age 16 and was in Ohio exclusively.  That is different from her allegations in 2017 that in 1973 when she was 14 or 15 she had a relationship with Pete Rose in Ohio and elsewhere. So there is a dispute about the circumstances of the relationship which would go to whether he broke the law. How the heck can you reasonably trust recollections and allegations 44 years in the past when they were made in 2017? Witnesses are certainly hazy if they are even alive anymore, evidence is lost with time, it is unfair to all involved to proceed on the matter given the limitations of the circumstances.

They are not litigating whether he is a creep or a bastard, that determination can be made by the individual.  No one is saying it was appropriate or proper for a married individual with kids to start another relationship with a minor whether they are 14, 15, 16, or any age around that time.  It is exploitative with a power dynamic that is prone to abuse at best and criminal at worst. The issue is of liability for an alleged civil act or potentially criminal charges that occurred almost 50 years ago presently and the statute of limitations precludes a case of that nature.


Rose isn't going to sleep with you, you're too old for him
 
2022-08-08 3:55:56 PM  

browneye: youngandstupid: Yeah, he really seems like he learned his lesson... Good guy.

Years ago back in the 1970s, I was a huge fan of the Big Red Machine and my favorite player was Johnny Bench, but I like Pete Rose as well. So it was a little disheartening to find out back then that Bench really disliked Rose. Then the whole crap about Rose's divorce, under-age sex, and, of course, the betting scandal started hitting the fan.

\'Course I realize Bench hasn't exactly been a saint either - having been married/divorced four times.


this just in - most professional athletes end up being assholes.   when you have basically zero accountability for a decade+, it will usually end up like that
 
2022-08-08 11:06:52 PM  

usernameguy: Warrior Kermit: I loved him as a player and hated him as a person but part of me agrees just how far back to we go in one's life to bring up past sins especially if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation.

Well, he was at an event celebrating something good he did 42 years ago, so I guess at least 42 years.


He didn't even do anything particularly good that year. 94 OPS+, terrible defense as always, negative bWAR. Sad when his practically negative production that year may be the best thing about him.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.