From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 19:22
In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote:
>> And he won 2 WS with the Reds. That is 3 more than Ty Cobb ever
> I thought he just played first... I mean, I know you think of
> yourself as many people. But Pete was always just one player.
You thought that Rose only played first? You truly don't know what
you are talking about.
From: Phil on 13 Jun 2007 19:33
On 2007-06-13 19:07:01 -0400, Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> said:
> In article <qQWbi.124606$NO1.26996(a)fe05.news.easynews.com>,
> <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote:
>> In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> So if Pete had not agreed to be declared permanently ineligible in
>>> ccordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible
>>> List, then he would have banned instead of agreeing to be
>>> permanently ineligible. Ooooooh Kay.
>> No. There would have been a formal investigation if Rose hadn't
>> have walked away. Rose may or may not have been exonerated. But
>> we'll never know because Rose didn't care. He walked away.
> First off, he didn't walk away. He signed an agreement to be banned
> Besides, we certainly know what would have happened if the truth had
> come out. We know for a fact what the truth is rather than simply
> evaluating the evidence ourselves. It would have been proven that he
> gambled on baseball and on his own team, and he would have been banned
> permanantly. Which is what has happened anyway. So who can complain?
> Justice has been served. The truth has been upheld.
> But I guess a group of folks like y'all with your morality could have
> always hoped to supress the truth and somehow weasel out from under it.
> Who cares what he did if he could get off, right? Pete and O.J.
In the end, it was the haircut that put him over the top.
From: Phil on 13 Jun 2007 19:44
On 2007-06-13 19:19:58 -0400, rm(a)biteme.org said:
>> Which is what has happened anyway. So who can complain? Justice
>> has been served. The truth has been upheld.
> Nobody is complaining except you.
Outright lie. Rose has been whining about revenue lost to him while
being excluded from the HoF for several years now, and some of his more
obnoxious stunts, including his various dealings with the WWF/WWE and
the "I'm sorry" signed baseballs he sold, were clearly as much
revenue-gaining maneuvers as they were designed to embarrass MLB and
the HoF into reversing their decisions.
> If you had wanted Pete Rose
> tarred and feathered then you should have written letters to the
> Commissioner at the appropriate time. A formal investigation could
> have been conducted, if Giamatti had enough prima facie evidence,
> over Rose's objections, and the charges against him could have been
> proven. But the charges were not proven.
> Pete Rose walked away from baseball and the only reason he has ever
> sought reinstatement is because he wants to be in the HoF,
Gee, and it has nothing to do with the secondary, retirement revenue
stream he somehow feels he's owed as a Hall-Of-Famer.
> just as
> he should be. All the gambling nonsense came after his stellar
> playing career had ended.
And if it had come after his management career had ended, there
wouldn't have been a problem. As for your repeated assertion that
there's nothing wrong with betting on your team to win (if that's all
he did, which is not the case), it seems evident Rose at least
considered the possibility, which is probably why the bets were made in
the convoluted manner they were, and why he lied about it for years.
From: Onyx_Hokie on 14 Jun 2007 02:06
** Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:33:38 GMT
> In rec.sport.baseball Phil <phil(a)nomail.com> wrote:
> > Isn't the Rose Award forever associated with cheating by its very
> > nature?
> Only to non-sport fans. Real sport fans think of Pete Rose as the
> greatest hitter of all time, by definition, and without
Most prolific != greatest
....unless you'd like to argue that the player with the most outs is the
worst hitter of all-time, by definition and without qualification.
(Hint: that's Rose, too)
From: rm on 14 Jun 2007 02:10
In rec.sport.baseball Onyx_Hokie <onyx_hokie(a)yahoo.cem> wrote:
> ** <rm(a)biteme.org>
>> Only to non-sport fans. Real sport fans think of Pete Rose as the
>> greatest hitter of all time, by definition, and without
> Most prolific != greatest
Sorry, bub. But the hitter with the greatest number of hits, is the
> ...unless you'd like to argue that the player with the most outs is the
> worst hitter of all-time, by definition and without qualification.
The player with the greatest number of outs, is the greatest outer.
Now go along and play.
cordially, as always,