Should Pete Rose be required to admit that he bet on baseball?

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is a lot of talk about Pete Rose these days, since his discussions with Bud (Lite) Selig.

A lot of people say that Rose needs to "admit" that he was involved in gambling.

I personally do not agree. I believe that Rose has been suspended long enough for betting on baseball. Again, I use the Hornung/Karras precedents as my justification for my position (they were suspended for one year for betting on NFL football, including betting on their own teams to win).

I don't believe that he is required to admit anything, especially in light of the fact that MLB signed an agreement with no official finding that Rose bet on baseball. I also don't believe that such an admission would serve any constructive purpose, for Rose, for the fans, or for MLB.

But what do you think? If you think Rose ought to provide some admission, explain what good you believe would come from it. If not, explain why.

[JamesI]

I think had Bart not died, Rose would be reinstated right now. But, under the circumstances, Selig will not remove Rose from the suspended list without hearing an admission. I think the media has made too much of an issue of it that Selig will feel like a failure if he gives in without the admission.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by JamesI
I think had Bart not died, Rose would be reinstated right now. But, under the circumstances, Selig will not remove Rose from the suspended list without hearing an admission. I think the media has made too much of an issue of it that Selig will feel like a failure if he gives in without the admission.

JamesI, some people here have posted the idea that once Rose makes an admission, Bud will turn aroung and suspend him for life. Do you think that would happen? (I think it may, simply because I didn't think of it, originally, and other people couched the idea in a way that seemed to make a lot of sense; i. e., Rose finally confesses to the crime, and, thus, the full punishment MUST be meted out under those circumstances.)

[mentos]

That makes no sense.

Rose is already suspended for life, why does Bud or any other commissioner need to work an admission out of him to do that?

And I dont buy that Rose would have been let back in by Giamatti.

Everyone is pointing out that the agreement states Rose could re-apply for re-instatement after one year. But that rule is on the books for ANYONE put on the permanently ineligble list, and not some special rider for Rose only. I dont see how conclusions can be made from that.

An admission of guilt by Rose would reaffirm that his name should remain on the ineligible list.

Nevermind that a confession would also prove that Rose has spent the last thirteen years lying about the subject every time he's asked.

[KCBOOMER]

It would help if Pete admitted he bet on baseball. Then his apologists would have to shut up and pray the rest of us are naive enough to think he didn't bet on games involving his own team.

[RedSeat]

Rose voluntarily signed a lifetime ban from baseball. That's enough of an admission for me. A LIFETIME ban. To me, it's a dead issue. He can't work in baseball or participate in their honors or activities.

[rcartman28]

From today's St. Paul Pioneer Press column by Tom Powers..."Reinstating Rose can't be good for baseball if Selig favors it". He goes on to say that "If Selig is FOR something, any true baseball fan should be AGAINST it". Makes perfect sense to me--if Bud is for it, then Pete should remain banned........

[sweaver]

Originally posted by RedSeat
He can't work in baseball or participate in their honors or activities.

Part of the problem is that Rose HAS participated in official activities, when paying sponsors have insisted on his presence. That makes the whole thing rather suspicious, IMO.

[Skip]

Yes to Sweaver. As I've said before, he's in or out period. For MLB to trot him out at their own whim and for their own benefit, while precluding him from an event such as the close of Cinergy/Riverfront which is primarily for the fans, is Tyson-esque ludacrisp.

To answer the thread's title question, I still think its not necessary ... though I would welcome it if it came.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
It would help if Pete admitted he bet on baseball. Then his apologists would have to shut up and pray the rest of us are naive enough to think he didn't bet on games involving his own team.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a huge difference between the two?

Isn't there all the difference in the world between gambling in general, betting on baseball, and betting on games in which you are involved in the outcome?

I believe the penalty for gambling on baseball is a one year suspension; and that gambling on games you are personally involved in as a player and/or manager results in the lifetime ban. Is this correct?

[sweaver]

You are correct, sir, and I think this is the crux of the problem. Can Rose admit to one without being buried under suspicion of the other?

[SmedIndy]

I'm to the point where I'd do anything to get him and his ugly mullett off my radar screen -

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a huge difference between the two?

Isn't there all the difference in the world between gambling in general, betting on baseball, and betting on games in which you are involved in the outcome?

I believe the penalty for gambling on baseball is a one year suspension; and that gambling on games you are personally involved in as a player and/or manager results in the lifetime ban. Is this correct?

Yes, you are correct. And, as to sweaver's question, I think that Rose could admit to betting on baseball without being buried under the suspicion of having bet on his own team (for which absolutely no evidence has come forth that he has).

Pete Rose is a lowlife, but that's not a reason to suspend him, or to maintain his suspension. Since baseball DOES trot him out when sponsors demand it, let's end the hypocrisy.

BTW, does anyone even think that Rose would be offered a managing job if he WERE reinstated? I think I'll start a new thread on this!

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by RedSeat
Rose voluntarily signed a lifetime ban from baseball. That's enough of an admission for me. A LIFETIME ban. To me, it's a dead issue. He can't work in baseball or participate in their honors or activities.

What RedSeat said. (That MLB does trot him out when it is convenient for them is hypocritical... but given the current leadership, this is not at all surprising.)