Charlie Hustle Finally Comes Clean...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:05 pm

I´ve had an absolute change of heart about this issue in the last 18 hours, due to reading Rob´s post, watching an interview with Fay Vincent on "The Charlie Rose Show" last night and reading, of all things, a story in today´s paper about sex abuse by priests.
 
 First, Rob is right. The guy broke the cardinal rule of baseball. Whether he´s sorry or not, he did it and admitted to it. There are many death-row prisoners who go to the gallows saying they´re sorry. Well, they still committed the crime.
 
 Second, Fay Vincent made a good point. If we allow Rose in, do we allow a lesser player back into baseball or the Hall if he commits the same offense in the future? Or is Rose getting special treatment because he´s Pete Rose? Vincent also said the rule about gambling has been a very effective deterrent, and admitting Rose to the Hall would damage that deterrent.
 
 Finally, the sex abuse story got me thinking. What if one of the abusive priests had since left the priesthood. Would we still want him named and identified as an abuser even though he´s not a priest anymore?
 
 It´s a bad analogy and strange thought, but that got me thinking about Rose and the "Well, he gambled only when he was a manager and not a player" reasoning for admitting Charlie Hustle into the Hall.
 
 Should that caveat matter? He was a member of the baseball community, whether as a manager or a player, and he broke the most sacred rule of that community. Much like I´d want an abusive priest to be identified in his community whether he still was a man of the cloth or not, I want Pete Rose to be punished for life whether his baseball sin occurred as a player or a manager.
 
 Quite a U-turn in my opinion, I´ll admit. But it´s funny sometimes how a variety of pieces of information converges in our heads and causes us to rethink things, eh?
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 07-01-2004 08:22 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:17 pm

River:
 
 As Rob mentioned, there already are Rose artifacts in the Hall. That´s enough.
 
 The Hall of Fame is a museum of baseball history, but it´s different than your typical museum. It´s more like a club in which you need to earn your membership. Rose clearly earned his membership on the field but forfeited that chance for election when he broke baseball´s No. 1 rule.
 
 It´s almost like a business club that was about ready to admit some top executives from Enron just before the scandal broke. Once the scandal broke and the club learned the Enron execs were crooks, they decided not to admit the execs.
 
 Election to the Hall is not a right; it´s a privilege. And it´s a privilege that I now don´t think Pete Rose deserves.
 
 As far as I´m concerned, Shoeless Joe Jackson is a much less culpable baseball criminal than Pete Rose. From all accounts, Jackson was a dim-witted, nice guy who went along with the scheme and was nailed, if my memory serves me right. Yet there´s absolutely no talk of admitting Joe Jackson to the Hall.
 
 Rose knew exactly what he was doing. Knew it was wrong. And then took 15 years to ´fess up after repeated lies.
 
 And honestly, guys, do any of you believe for a second that Rose would have come clean if he didn´t have a book to hype? Do you think he would have called ABC and said, "Hey, I have something I need to tell the country about my baseball career."
 
 Of course not. Rose´s confession is a pure PR and marketing ploy, not a sincere act of contrition. Ray Charles could see that.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 07-01-2004 08:19 ]

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:19 pm

I think a lot of the equivocating stems from a lack of understanding just how seriously MLB takes gambling. It may have been 100 years ago, but there is a tremendous impetus within the institution of baseball to prevent gambling above all other ills. The Black Sox scandal was really just the tip of the iceberg as far as gambling went in the early 20th c., and it almost literally killed Major League Baseball. Institutions have memories, too.
 
 The Lords of the Game, for all of their numerous flaws, understood then and continued to understand (through Giamatti at least) that gambling was the achilles heel of the game. Scandals with drug abuse, steroids, domestic abuse etc may be the equivalent or even worse than gambling on the general human scale of transgressions, but MLB has its own scale and MLB sets the rules.
 
 pk,
 
 Glad to have been able to pursuade at least one person. Makes me feel like I had a more productive day yesterday...although I still feel bad for inadvertently flaming JRod...

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:26 pm

I think they should keep his ass out to teach everyone a lesson. All this crap I heard on ESPN today about "Ty Cobb was a racist, Babe Ruth was a drunk, etc." is moot. The rule is, don´t bet on baseball. Break that rule and you´re banned. If they reinstate Rose, they will open the floodgates here.
 
 Rose thinks he is above baseball, that his great accomplishments as a player outweigh the rules he broke as a manager. IMHO I don´t know why they are even debating this anymore.

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:50 pm

I hope he gets reinstated only to see him fail to be elected by 1 vote for the remaining years of his life.
 The guy lied for 15 years and it´s only now telling the truth to make $$ of baseball.
 I´m actually quite tired of seeing this guy on TV. Pretty pathetic man.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:20 pm

PK,
 One thing that makes this issue so difficult to grasp is the player manager distinction.
 
 Pete Rose broke the laws as manager not as a player. So how do we deal with that? I watched that interview last night and Faye Vincent made some compelling arguements.
 
 The problem is do you allow Rose in for his accomplishments when he was "legitimate" or do you ban his record as player for his actions as manager?
 
 And think about this, what if we had the commisioner was Kenesaw Landis. He would not allow Pete Rose in at any cost. And I garuntee you baseball would be in better shape with this guy.
 
 It doesn´t help when the Commish is baiting him into a confession. Bud Selig has wanted this for sometime. If he woudl have just said no to Pete Rose at all costs he would still be banned. what is Bud trying to accomplish. Getting Rose to admit publically so the public perception is changed, bait him for publicity? I don´t know. But when a commisioner is bascially saying, "tell us what you did and we might let you back into baseball?" What does that say about Bud Selig?
 
 Lastly, this Pete Rose problem is just like any other scandal it´s taking away from talking about the real problems in baseball. Baseball is headed toward another crash and we are all talking about Rose in the Hall of Fame.

krustylew · Post by **krustylew** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:45 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-07 12:20, JRod wrote:
 And think about this, what if we had the commisioner was Kenesaw Landis. He would not allow Pete Rose in at any cost. And I garuntee you baseball would be in better shape with this guy.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 If you are saying that we would be better off with Landis as our commissioner today, I would disagree.
 
 If you haven´t already, read Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof. Landis was an over-the-top demagogue, who was so concerned with making a statement that he had little regard for any innocent people that may have had their lives ruined by his actions [i.e. Buck Weaver, and to a lesser extent Joe Jackson].

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:33 pm

Well almost anyone in the early 1900 was a racist. I find that remark absurd. It´s like sayng if Jefferson was President today he would need to have slaves if order to do his job.
 
 Landis is the reason baseball survived from it´s darkest period. Yes he kept blacks out but blacks were out of almost everything in the day and age. Was it right no, but that was America.
 
 And this arguement that he would be to autoritarian for baseball today. The owners should be in control. The owners are businessmen and they would do anything to make money. If that means that can make money and not win that´s what you do.
 
 Second, Bud Selig shouldn´t be a part owner and commish. I find something terribly wrong with that. That would be like saying the President can be a Senator at the same time.
 
 If someone doesn´t take on the player´s union and the owners baseball in the next round of negotiations will be again headed down the wrong road.

TheFormerBrett44 · Post by **TheFormerBrett44** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 10:43 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-01-07 14:33, JRod wrote:
 Landis is the reason baseball survived from it´s darkest period.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 And yet he let Ty Cobb off the hook several times, including the fact that Cobb was caught redhanded betting on baseball. Kind of fitting that Pete Rose broke his record isn´t it?
 
 Anyone ever read or do any research about Mr. Cobb? And I´m not talking about reading the "novel" that´s titled Cobb or watching the Tommy Lee Jones film. He was a fasinating character that was virtually out-of-control his entire life. He did and got away with things that would blow your mind, and he also happened to be one of the, if not the best baseball player who ever lived.
 
 Brett
 
 Brett

JeffBarnes · Post by **JeffBarnes** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:23 am

Peter Rose Is A Manny Man
 A Manny Man Is He
 He Didn´t Have To Climb
 A Sycamore Tree
 For He´s A Manny Man!
 
 First I would say that if Pete hadn´t been an EEEEAWWW! he wouldn´t have gotten the 4,219 hits. Wouldn´t own a 2.5 million dollar home! (or whatever).
 
 I think its possible to seperate the issue of reinstatement and Hall of Fame. One could just let The People vote on the Hall of Fame (not the writers) and see what they think.
 
 Pete Rose has done what he needs to do to set the process in motion to Hall of Faming. He has bet on baseball. I figure he had over the last several years anyhow, so as Kenneth Copeland says "confession brings possession".
 
 He is Pete Rose. He is Charlie Hustle. All criteria (except for character) has been satisfied. His stats, his integers (not just the 4,000 hits. I believe he has won over 1,000 baseball games over his playing career. The web site www.baseballreference.com has his career and he rates a HOFer. He was the classic sportsman, much like James Bond was the classic agent 007. His player integrity was second to none as his hustle & his drive is a great legacy for all men and for all boys!
 
 The only thing he lacks is character. His betting on baseball as a manager is a tarnish, but then again so was George Steinbrenner´s... what was it he got suspended for again? Personally, I would not worry about bets he took as a player as he would in effect be betting against himself (and) there can be no doubt he was the consummate players player, like a Larry Bird. A Man´s Man. A Hustler.
 
 And since he admitted to the betting, I say "Let´s Move On". He can go Hall of Fame and let that be that.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:14 pm

On NPR, they had this columnist from Cincy who said knowing Rose, it would be typical if this admission involved money, i.e. someone, perhaps his publisher, offered him money to finally admit he gambled on baseball.
 
 So he´s not as desperate to get into the HoF or get reinstated so much, unless there was a financial angle involved.
 
 If he makes the HoF, I guess his merchandise will be worth a lot more. Plus managers get paid pretty well these days.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:32 pm

wco,
 
 The consensus of those who know him is that he really wants to get back in the game and manage more than he wants his spot in the HoF. He reportedly said that he would be able to make millions as a manager if he got another shot. So there you go... <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif">
 
 Another reason to keep his ass planted on QVC.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 12:24 am

I become more and more firm in my change of heart about Rose as I read more.
 
 Rocky Mountain News columnist Bernie Lincicome -- whom I think is an overrated, second-rate jackoff as a writer -- used the same tired argument to promote Rose for the Hall in a column this week that I formerly used: Hey, Ty Cobb was a prick and probably broke the law, but he´s in.
 
 Lincicome took it a step further and said Lawrence Taylor and O.J. Simpson´s busts should be removed from Canton if Rose doesn´t get into Cooperstown.
 
 It´s only Jan. 8, but that might be the biggest crock of s*** I read in 2004 by a sports writer.
 
 First, LT didn´t break the rules of football. Did he ever admit to playing the game coked up? Did he gamble on the game? I don´t think so.
 
 Second, O.J. was guilty as hell -- we all know that. But he wasn´t convicted by a court.
 
 The big difference between Rose and LT and Cobb is that Rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball -- no gambling on the game while participating in it. LT broke the rules of society by doing coke and committing other crimes off the field. Cobb supposedly killed a man at one point, but that wasn´t a baseball rule.
 
 Fools like Lincicome say the Hall isn´t a place where we enshrine moral saints. He´s right. But it IS a place where we enshrine those who played by baseball´s rules and also were great players.
 
 The Hall isn´t governed by society´s rules. It´s governed by baseball´s rules.
 
 And Pete Rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball. He committed the original hardball sin that nearly destroyed the game. The f*cker was so stupid that he took the apple from the serpent again and ate it, knowing full well what happened the first time.
 
 Nothing Rose does now -- especially in the shadowy context of a feeble apology tied in with a book launch -- can change that.
 
 As hockey analyst John Davidson says, "You do the crime, you serve the time." The time for Rose is life; it´s forever. He knew that when he gambled on baseball, so he can pay the price for perpetuity.
 
 I shed zero tears for Pete Rose. He´s a pathetic figure, and I hope the f*cker drowns in his own self-pity.
 
 Damn, I never would have wrote this even two weeks ago!
 
 Take care,
 PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 1:48 am

Well done, pk. "These are not the droids you´re looking for." <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif">

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 3:27 pm

You know what I would pay to see.
 
 Pete Rose publically apologize to all of the people he completely trashed when professing his innocence. Pete tried to destroy people without any care in the world.
 
 
 Especially:
 
 John Dowd
 Bart Giamattis family
 The author of every biography written before this confession
 
 There are many others but you get my gist.
 
 
 Something tells me that John Dowd is walking around with a bit of grin on his face these days.