If steroids had never been used in baseball, what would people use to

F

Fozzy

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Points
1
argue for Pete Rose's reinstatement? It seems the only argument most people have about the subject is that "Steroids are MUCH worse than betting on your team to win." What sort of straws would the Rose apologists blindly grasp at had steroids never been an issue? Or would they perhaps actually get it that what Rose did was incredibly wrong and not deserving of leniency if there had not been something happen that they somehow think was more egregious?
For Machinehead - when Bonds becomes eligible, will you use "SEVEN HUNDRED, SIXTY-TWO" as an argument for him? After all, he is the lifetime leader in homers.
For Real Eyes - so should baseball lower its' standards to meet those of the NFL? Or would perhaps the better solution be for the NFL to raise its' standards instead? You may as well state that the WWE allowed steroid use for years, so why is it so bad?
For Sox Fan - I agree that it's a stupid argument to make, but it seems it is made all of the time - You know - "If steroid users can still play, why can't Pete Rose be reinstated?". And can you really be sure it never affected the way Rose managed? He has admitted that he did not bet on every game. Could it be possible that he may have stuck with a pitcher too long, or maybe played a player who could have really used a day off to try harder to win? Keep in mind that part of managing a baseball team is managing for 162 games, and that sometimes actually involves realizing that a game is out of reach and simply letting it go on order to set yourself up for the next game? And wouldn't part of the fact that Rose didn't bet on his team to win every single game mean that he was in effect betting against his team on those days - saying they didn't have a chance to win so why bet?
Again for Machinehead - I like your comment "Who the f*ck do you think you are to impose your holier-than-thou morals on others?" Are you not imposing YOUR morals on me by stating that? Are you not judging me in your statement?
Shame that what could be a fairly intelligent discussion has to end up in a pissing match and a personal attack.
Again for Machinehead - I like your comment "Who the f*ck do you think you are to impose your holier-than-thou morals on others?" Are you not imposing YOUR morals on me by stating that? Are you not judging me in your statement?
Shame that what could be a fairly intelligent discussion has to end up in a pissing match and a personal attack.
 
What the steroid users did affected every game they played in, day after day, season after season. They lowered batting averages and raised ERA's and took away wins from other teams. What Rose did never affected the outcome of a game. That's my arguement. He's served his punishment, and I think he should be re-instated and elected, especially since A-roid and Baroid Bonds haven't been banned for life
 
The Pete Rose who bet on games his team played and took years to finally admit is the same Pete Rose who, after retirement from baseball, served time in a Federal Penitentiary for personal income tax evasion = a convicted felon.

Coincidence? "Charlie Hustle" is an appropriate nickname.
 
I question whether the apologists will ever get it.
 
I would argue that he didn't cheat while he played. You could just put him in as a player, because he got in trouble for betting on baseball after his HOF career was over. Shoeless Joe Jackson can't go in because he bet while he played and influenced his HOF career. Rose's problem had no effect on what would've got him into the hall.
 
Maybe the idea that "Ty Cobb was a racist and he's in the Hall of Fame. Racism is far worse than betting on your team to win".
 
Second chances.

I have no opinion on Pete Rose and the reason I am not fully against it is because Pete Rose may deserve a second chance.

But seriously, I have barely looked into the whole case and really don't care.
 
Sure, steroids ARE worse, and they ought to be item # 2 on the list of 2 things a guy can do to be banned from the game. However, the 'put Rose in' people are saying, "Yeah, sure, he robbed a few people, but he didn't kill them so he shouldn't have to go to jail."

Betting as a manager is far worse than betting as a player. Who else could influence the outcome of a game more than the manager?

And who SAYS he didn't bet as a player? What made him suddenly decide, "Well, now that I'm a manager I'm gonna bet on the game."? And if he bet on the game, who says he didn't bet against his team? Him? Real credible source, that.

Face it. Like Tricky Dick, Rose IS a crook.
 
Rose used to hang around bodybuilders, real gym rats. He had to know about steroids, could have made connections, knew guys who knew guys....

He played to a very advanced age, as baseball players go.

Dot here, dot there... maybe the dots connect?

I have no idea, and really no interest -- but if it ever were to come out that Rose did use steroids, SO many heads would explode!

Hee hee.


----------
MLB's Rule 21 -- the no gambling rule -- does not exist for any moralistic reasons. Anyone who thinks that is so the case is woefully naive. Any arguments regards Rose, pro or con, that rely upon a morality based standing, are utterly irrelevant.

Rose owns the major league record for most outs made (and he holds this mark by a vast margin).
 
My argument would be the same...


FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX.

That will always be my argument.

Bonds cheated on the field. Rose is the all-time hits leader fair and square. I don't care what he does off the field. It's a stupid rule. Who the f*ck do you think you are to impose your holier-than-thou morals on others?

Fine if you don't want a pissing match, I'll stick to the facts. The fact remains; 4,256 hits. All the Hall of Fame should care about is on the field. I will admit that according to the rules, he shouldn't be in. What I'm doing here is questioning the rules. All I was trying to say with the morals comment is that who a player is -his morals- should not decide whether or not he gets into the Hall of Fame. To me it comes down to two questions: Is Pete Rose a Hall of Famer strictly on the field? Yes, without a doubt. Did he cheat to get there? No he did not. To me that's all that matters. I'll leave it at that. Good day to you sir.

And just to answer your question I would never use the steroids argument. I'm ok with what Rose did. I'm not ok with steroids.
 
That's a pretty stupid argument, something doesn't automatically become good because people think the other is worse.

Pete Rose should be reinstated because what he did was completely off the field, and did not affect his managing of games. He never bet against his team, and even when he did bet on it I don't think it gave him much more of a desire to win.

And anyway, most managers want to win games to get money from the team, if they don't, they get fired and don't get any. So is it really so different?

Edit: The part about overuse of pitchers fascinates me. After doing a little bit of research, most of the members of Rose's starting pitching staff had relatively short careers, and almost all of them retired before the age of 35. I'm not sure if it's been brought up before, but maybe using them in games for longer than they should of been for the purpose of winning bets caused them to have to retire early. Just a theory though.

But I don't think stuff like that can be proven either, you can't penalize someone for something you can't really confirm.
 
Back
Top