Why is Pete Rose different than.......?

I get the feeling most of you want Rose in the HOF.


But the same people don't want Bonds or Clemens to be allowed entrance.


Why is Rose different?


Neither Bonds or Clemens are through with their legal battles.


Rose lied to the people for 13 years. Thats the part I can't get over.


In my heart I think Bonds and Clemens are guilty as, you know,


But until that is set in stone how can you say


Rose in, Clemens and Bonds out?


If you say these 2 are out, then everyone that has been found guilty, !everyone! has to have the same punishment


Please no flaming, play nice :)


Thanks for answering and please star


Stats should not be considered, if they are considered for the HOF, then their stats stand as not to be disputed

Why is Pete Rose different than.......?
Rose gambled on his team while he was manager. He had control of health and success of young pitchers who he could overuse to win a bet. His choices may have hurt other people directly; there is no comparison to the others.





PEDs were common in baseball and MLB looked the other way. Bonds cannot be blamed - when baseball celebrated McGwire and Sosa and while he was facing juiced pitchers - to finally decide to play by the same rules that many others were already playing. Blame MLB for Bonds. But blame Rose for Rose.
Reply:I think they all should be in the HoF based on their stats.


The only reason to keep Bonds and/or Clemens out is if they are found guilty of having cheated by using performance enhancing substances (neither has been).


The HoF has lots of guys in it who were less than exemplary people but that's never been the point, until we got to a situation where 24-hour news coverage blows everything into a huge issue.


So, either those 3 should go in or a bunch of other guys - starting with racist prick and cheater Ty Cobb - should come out.
Reply:You're right, Rose should never be allowed in the HOF. He broke the rules in the worst way, and lied about it until the truth finally came out.





You're also right about the Steroids players. Finish the case before you get to the sentencing phase. If the players are found guilty of steroid use, they should be banned... both from the HOF and from MLB baseball (as in, they should never be allowed to play again).





The MLB and the courts should investigate each player separately, and anyone found guilty should receive the same lifetime ban from the MLB and HOF for their first offense. Let the courts worry about who gets jail time, fines etc.
Reply:Because Pete Rose gave his all to the game day in and day out. He may have bet on baseball (I'm not even sure that he didn't confess to that just because he knew he had no shot unless he did). Whatever the case may be, he sure as hell didn't take steroids. He did it all with hustle and the talent God blessed him with.
Reply:i think that rose should be let into the HOF because he admitted it and bonds and clemons lied about it. He still has record nobody has broken and probaly won't ever break.
Reply:Rose signed a plea bargain with Baseball to accept his ejection from baseball. If innocent then why sign?
Reply:Because Bonds and Clemens used STEROIDS TO HELP THEM. Rose did not use anything to help him during his career.
Reply:Well I will answer this based on the "allegations". If Bonds and Clemens were found to be clean of steroids, then they should be HOF material. But if not, they should be restrained from ever getting in. The main point was made in a previous post. Pete Rose lied, concealed a lie for years, but came clean with his crime. At no time did Pete Rose ever "alter" or "decievingly change" the game at all. He can bet all he wants, but he cannot physically alter the outcome of games played. He was merely doing what alot of people are doing today and that's sports betting, even if it is against your own team. IF Bonds and Clemens are found guilty of steroid/enhancing agents, then they have used something that has "altered" or "decievingly changed" the course of the game. They would have taken the natural gift of playing the sport and turned it into a fake facade of "a great baseball player". Players are respected for natural, physical abilities, not by what they can do with medicines or drugs. So I don't find it fair at all to compare a lie of sports betting and steroid usage. It's two totally different arguments with differences in the alteration of the game itself and how it is played. RR

pomegranate