Quote:
Originally Posted by walkeraviator
My only issue with the Pete Rose thing is that they did tell him that his ban would be lifted if he admitted and appologized for his actions. He kept up his end of the Bargain and the HOF committee is balking on their end. I dont think he should be in teh HOF, but if someone makes a deal like that, then they should stand by their word.
|
I think MLB did uphold their end. I could be wrong, but as I understand it, the lifetime ban was lifted and Rose is eligible to appeal for reinstatement. I believe he has done so twice thus far, and his appeal has been rejected both times. I don't think there was ever any agreement or deal in place that said if he admitted to gambling on baseball that he would automatically be eligible for the HOF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavery5
Pete Rose has always been one of my favorite athletes. He is one of the greatest baseball players to ever step on the field. In my opinion the HOF is a place to honor people like Pete Rose for their sports related accomplishments. There are many other awards for fantastic people. It would be funny to see someone denied the Nobel Peace Prize because they only batted .116 on their little league baseball team. Don't confuse the two, HOF is for great athletes not great people.
|
I agree with you Tav, except that Rose broke a baseball rule, not some non-baseball related rule or bad behavior off the field. I guess Hank Aaron's comments from 2004 pretty much capture my thoughts on the whole Rose fiasco. Here is Aaron's quote from a 2004 USA Today article -- "
I just think it's hogwash to say that he should be put back into the game just because the public wants it. A rule is a rule, and the rule is on every clubhouse door that you can't bet on baseball. It doesn't say that you're excluded if you have 4,000 hits or 700 home runs."