WWTBAM Bored

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/cou ... ar-AApazt3

What kills me is that his camp doesn't dispute the "relationship", only that the girl was 16, not "under 16". So a 34 year-old slime bucket who's married with two kids beds down with a 16 year-old, but it's "ok", because it was legal in Ohio.

This does nothing to change my opinion that this man is a giant douche with a high school jock mentality who has never learned the meaning of the word accountability.

Rose has now been uninvited from the Phillies' Alumni Weekend ceremonies next weekend that were to honor him for being voted into their Hall of Fame.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2022 ... llegations

Is this new revelation? I was on his side of getting into the HOF, but not now.

BackInTex wrote:Is this new revelation? I was on his side of getting into the HOF, but not now.

John Dowd is the attorney who was in charge of the investigation that led to Rose being banned from baseball back in the 1990's. In a 2015 radio interview, he alleged that Rose had relations with minor girls during his playing days and Rose sued him for defamation. This sworn statement from the alleged victim is one of the documents Dowd is presenting in his defense in the defamation case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/spor ... ge-14.html

BackInTex wrote:Is this new revelation? I was on his side of getting into the HOF, but not now.

The way I see it, the Hall is a baseball museum, not a testament to anyone's character. From that perspective, it's ridiculous to leave out someone with Rose's on-field accomplishments. I'd handle it but including his whole story, including the lifetime ban and the reason why. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Is this new revelation? I was on his side of getting into the HOF, but not now.

The way I see it, the Hall is a baseball museum, not a testament to anyone's character. From that perspective, it's ridiculous to leave out someone with Rose's on-field accomplishments. I'd handle it but including his whole story, including the lifetime ban and the reason why. --Bob

They could put Rose's statue next to the little girls' room.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Is this new revelation? I was on his side of getting into the HOF, but not now.

The way I see it, the Hall is a baseball museum, not a testament to anyone's character. From that perspective, it's ridiculous to leave out someone with Rose's on-field accomplishments. I'd handle it but including his whole story, including the lifetime ban and the reason why.

Major League Rule 21
...
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...
(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.

He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

He's been outed as much more than a pussy-grabber. Where is your outrage? Is this OK, since he wasn't caught on tape bragging about it?

Estonut wrote: He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

It's not just "one of the biggest sins in baseball." It's a sin that affects the very integrity of the game. The Black Sox scandal came close to destroying baseball (and might have if Babe Ruth hadn't landed in New York the next year). True, Rose only bet on his team to win, but he was in a position to influence the outcome of a particular game at the expense of others he hadn't bet on (deciding which players to rest that day, whether to move up a starter or risk bringing in a closer too many days in a row). Managers often have to decide how much value to place on any particular game in comparison to possibly doing long term damage to a team, but by betting on the games Rose may have let those thoughts influence his decision.

I agree that the Hall of Fame isn't the Hall of Good Character, but the survival of any sport depends on how much integrity the game on the field has in the eyes of the fans.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Is this new revelation? I was on his side of getting into the HOF, but not now.

The way I see it, the Hall is a baseball museum, not a testament to anyone's character. From that perspective, it's ridiculous to leave out someone with Rose's on-field accomplishments. I'd handle it but including his whole story, including the lifetime ban and the reason why.

Major League Rule 21
...
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...
(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.

He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

He's been outed as much more than a pussy-grabber. Where is your outrage? Is this OK, since he wasn't caught on tape bragging about it?

He's been accused of an illegal relationship with an underage girl. He's suing the guy who accused him for defamation and the jury will have the case soon. It's obviously not okay (if he did what he's accused of), but yes, in my view, induction into the Hall of Fame should only depend on on-field accomplishments. I think the writers should have had the opportunity to decide whether his on-field sins outweigh his on-field accomplishments, just as (I believe) they did for Shoeless Joe Jackson. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The way I see it, the Hall is a baseball museum, not a testament to anyone's character. From that perspective, it's ridiculous to leave out someone with Rose's on-field accomplishments. I'd handle it but including his whole story, including the lifetime ban and the reason why.

Major League Rule 21
...
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...
(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.

He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

He's been outed as much more than a pussy-grabber. Where is your outrage? Is this OK, since he wasn't caught on tape bragging about it?

He's been accused of an illegal relationship with an underage girl. He's suing the guy who accused him for defamation and the jury will have the case soon. It's obviously not okay (if he did what he's accused of), but yes, in my view, induction into the Hall of Fame should only depend on on-field accomplishments. I think the writers should have had the opportunity to decide whether his on-field sins outweigh his on-field accomplishments, just as (I believe) they did for Shoeless Joe Jackson. --Bob

Nope! Shoeless Joe has never come up for a vote due to his lifetime ban from Judge Landis. He is Example #1 given by many for why Pete Rose, Bonds, and Clemens will have to wait. ("Until Shoeless Joe gets in, these cheaters can't get in.")

Bob78164 wrote:He's been accused of an illegal relationship with an underage girl. He's suing the guy who accused him for defamation and the jury will have the case soon. It's obviously not okay (if he did what he's accused of), but yes, in my view, induction into the Hall of Fame should only depend on on-field accomplishments. I think the writers should have had the opportunity to decide whether his on-field sins outweigh his on-field accomplishments, just as (I believe) they did for Shoeless Joe Jackson. --Bob

The only thing that baffles me more than those who don't understand what it means to be declared permanently ineligible from baseball....

Appa23 wrote:Nope! Shoeless Joe has never come up for a vote due to his lifetime ban from Judge Landis. He is Example #1 given by many for why Pete Rose, Bonds, and Clemens will have to wait. ("Until Shoeless Joe gets in, these cheaters can't get in.")

... are those try to throw the PED crowd into the Gamblers Purgatory. Betting on baseball is the sport's version of a capital offense. Use of "performance enhancing drugs" was akin to speeding in the game for a long time. There were allegedly rules against them, but everyone was doing it and the cops couldn't be bothered to care what was going on. There was also no precedent of lifetime banishment with clear and convincing warnings about the consequences for PED use printed in every baseball clubhouse either.

I'd bet (ha!) anything that Bonds and Clemens live to see the day they are elected (by whatever means) to the HoF... but it'll be a cold day in Timbuktu the day Rose makes it to the podium. And not because he's a sleazebag, or an asshole, or because he banged a 16 year old girl who was old enough to legally have sex with other 16 year olds.... but because he broke baseball's golden rule knowing full well what it would mean if he got caught.

lb13

Appa23 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:Major League Rule 21
...
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...
(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.

He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

He's been outed as much more than a pussy-grabber. Where is your outrage? Is this OK, since he wasn't caught on tape bragging about it?

He's been accused of an illegal relationship with an underage girl. He's suing the guy who accused him for defamation and the jury will have the case soon. It's obviously not okay (if he did what he's accused of), but yes, in my view, induction into the Hall of Fame should only depend on on-field accomplishments. I think the writers should have had the opportunity to decide whether his on-field sins outweigh his on-field accomplishments, just as (I believe) they did for Shoeless Joe Jackson. --Bob

Nope! Shoeless Joe has never come up for a vote due to his lifetime ban from Judge Landis. He is Example #1 given by many for why Pete Rose, Bonds, and Clemens will have to wait. ("Until Shoeless Joe gets in, these cheaters can't get in.")

Then why did the Hall's trustees have to change the rules to prevent Rose from being considered? I distinctly remember them doing so.

Ultimately, I think keeping Rose out of the Hall is akin to Disney keeping Donny out of its Hall of Presidents. Like him or not (and I don't), he's an important part of the history of the game. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Ultimately, I think keeping Rose out of the Hall is akin to Disney keeping Donny out of its Hall of Presidents. Like him or not (and I don't), he's an important part of the history of the game. --Bob

A poor analogy. The Hall of Presidents has all presidents. Good, bad, ugly. All presidents qualify.

The Baseball HoF is for those players who are deserving of special recognition and honor. Not all players qualify. In this case, not the bad.

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:He's been accused of an illegal relationship with an underage girl. He's suing the guy who accused him for defamation and the jury will have the case soon. It's obviously not okay (if he did what he's accused of), but yes, in my view, induction into the Hall of Fame should only depend on on-field accomplishments. I think the writers should have had the opportunity to decide whether his on-field sins outweigh his on-field accomplishments, just as (I believe) they did for Shoeless Joe Jackson. --Bob

Nope! Shoeless Joe has never come up for a vote due to his lifetime ban from Judge Landis. He is Example #1 given by many for why Pete Rose, Bonds, and Clemens will have to wait. ("Until Shoeless Joe gets in, these cheaters can't get in.")

Then why did the Hall's trustees have to change the rules to prevent Rose from being considered? I distinctly remember them doing so.

Ultimately, I think keeping Rose out of the Hall is akin to Disney keeping Donny out of its Hall of Presidents. Like him or not (and I don't), he's an important part of the history of the game. --Bob

I apparently was mistaken. Jackson did receive a few votes when first eligible. He was rejected by the voters.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Ultimately, I think keeping Rose out of the Hall is akin to Disney keeping Donny out of its Hall of Presidents. Like him or not (and I don't), he's an important part of the history of the game. --Bob

A poor analogy. The Hall of Presidents has all presidents. Good, bad, ugly. All presidents qualify.

The Baseball HoF is for those players who are deserving of special recognition and honor. Not all players qualify. In this case, not the bad.

I think this is the root of our disagreement here. I view enshrinement in the Hall as recognizing accomplishments important to the history of baseball. I don't think it's possible to argue that Rose doesn't meet that standard.

Given some of the utter jackasses who are already in the Hall, I think it's way too late to impose a general character test. I have a lot more sympathy for those who view baseball-related misconduct as relevant, or even disqualifying. I just think the game is better served by looking at its history with clear eyes, rather than expurgating portions it would rather forget. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I view enshrinement in the Hall as recognizing accomplishments important to the history of baseball. I don't think it's possible to argue that Rose doesn't meet that standard.

His accomplishments are already recognized there. The man is not. I don't have any problem with that.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Is this new revelation? I was on his side of getting into the HOF, but not now.

The way I see it, the Hall is a baseball museum, not a testament to anyone's character. From that perspective, it's ridiculous to leave out someone with Rose's on-field accomplishments. I'd handle it but including his whole story, including the lifetime ban and the reason why.

Major League Rule 21
...
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...
(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.

He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

He's been outed as much more than a pussy-grabber. Where is your outrage? Is this OK, since he wasn't caught on tape bragging about it?

If I'm reading this correctly, a beer vendor at Dodger Stadium who takes a weekend trip to Las Vegas and places a legal bet on the Yankees vs. Red Sox game must be suspended from his beer vending job for a year. That seems harsh.

TheConfessor wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The way I see it, the Hall is a baseball museum, not a testament to anyone's character. From that perspective, it's ridiculous to leave out someone with Rose's on-field accomplishments. I'd handle it but including his whole story, including the lifetime ban and the reason why.

Major League Rule 21
...
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...
(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.

He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

He's been outed as much more than a pussy-grabber. Where is your outrage? Is this OK, since he wasn't caught on tape bragging about it?

If I'm reading this correctly, a beer vendor at Dodger Stadium who takes a weekend trip to Las Vegas and places a legal bet on the Yankees vs. Red Sox game must be suspended from his beer vending job for a year. That seems harsh.

Ha Ha. My experiences at Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Honda Center, The Anaheim Convention Center, John Wayne Airport and LAX are that food service is generally contracted out, so the beer vendor is not an employee of the Dodgers. They just get a cut of the money he brings in.

Estonut wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:

Estonut wrote:Major League Rule 21
...
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...
(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.

He voluntarily violated one of the biggest sins in baseball. The rule and penalty have been posted in every clubhouse for 90 years.

What if he had admitted other crimes? Would his on-field accomplishments outweigh anything else, too?

He's been outed as much more than a pussy-grabber. Where is your outrage? Is this OK, since he wasn't caught on tape bragging about it?

If I'm reading this correctly, a beer vendor at Dodger Stadium who takes a weekend trip to Las Vegas and places a legal bet on the Yankees vs. Red Sox game must be suspended from his beer vending job for a year. That seems harsh.

Ha Ha. My experiences at Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Honda Center, The Anaheim Convention Center, John Wayne Airport and LAX are that food service is generally contracted out, so the beer vendor is not an employee of the Dodgers. They just get a cut of the money he brings in.

In the literal sense Ed is getting at, it would apply to ushers, ticket booth salesmen, the public address announcer, the ballgirls, the mascot... all of whom usually are employed directly by the team. I would imagine though that it is generally interpreted as applying only to MLB employees who could conceivably affect the outcome on the field.... the front office from the owner down to the interns, and also anyone who directly works with the players... like trainers and clubhouse attendants.

lb13

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

This apparently would include NCAA, High School, Pony League, Little League, and the Northside Baptist vs the Oak Lawn Methodist charity baseball game.

We like the way this Bored thinks!

There are currently several openings in our paralegal department. Does anyone know how to make really excellent coffee?

BackInTex wrote:

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

This apparently would include NCAA, High School, Pony League, Little League, and the Northside Baptist vs the Oak Lawn Methodist charity baseball game.

I'm a bit stumped here. I thought I would check the rules to see if and how they define "baseball" or "baseball game" to see if there's some reason why BiT's argument wouldn't be valid, but the only Major League Baseball rules I can find are the Official Rules of Baseball, which, in its foreward, says that it applies to the playing of games by professional teams of Major League Baseball. There are only nine rules in there, and they all have to do with the actual playing of the game (except Rule 9, which covers official scoring). There are actually two versions of these rules. In the current numbering version, the definitions appear as an appendix. In the earlier version, they appear as Rule 2, and subsequent rules are numbered 3-10. In either case, I can't find Rule 21 (or Rules 11-20 for that matter). So, where are these elusive Rules 11-21?

http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/4/0/2249 ... t69t59.pdf

I met Pete Rose last Friday, during a brief lull in events at TCONA. He alternates between shops at the MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay. Rose happened to be at Mandalay Bay last week. Meeting with him and talking with him for a good 3 minutes was one of the many highlights of my trip, getting a chance to meet someone I admired growing up and getting a signed baseball, to boot. I also wanted to do this experience before the law and/or time catches up with him.

ohiomathtchr wrote:I met Pete Rose last Friday, during a brief lull in events at TCONA. He alternates between shops at the MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay. Rose happened to be at Mandalay Bay last week. Meeting with him and talking with him for a good 3 minutes was one of the many highlights of my trip, getting a chance to meet someone I admired growing up and getting a signed baseball, to boot. I also wanted to do this experience before the law and/or time catches up with him.

I passed on a similar opportunity last year. I'm a huge admirer of his accomplishments as a player and I think they should be recognized. But as a human being (from what I know of him), I'm (to say the least) not impressed. --Bob

littlebeast13 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:If I'm reading this correctly, a beer vendor at Dodger Stadium who takes a weekend trip to Las Vegas and places a legal bet on the Yankees vs. Red Sox game must be suspended from his beer vending job for a year. That seems harsh.

Ha Ha. My experiences at Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Honda Center, The Anaheim Convention Center, John Wayne Airport and LAX are that food service is generally contracted out, so the beer vendor is not an employee of the Dodgers. They just get a cut of the money he brings in.

In the literal sense Ed is getting at, it would apply to ushers, ticket booth salesmen, the public address announcer, the ballgirls, the mascot... all of whom usually are employed directly by the team. I would imagine though that it is generally interpreted as applying only to MLB employees who could conceivably affect the outcome on the field.... the front office from the owner down to the interns, and also anyone who directly works with the players... like trainers and clubhouse attendants.

lb13

So it appears that Pete Rose's mistake was not setting up a corporation of which he was the 100% owner and sole employee. Then the Reds could have contracted with the corporation to provide a manager for the team, and Pete would not have been an employee of the Reds, so he would have been free to bet on any games he wanted. Seems like all players and coaches should set up corporations that way, so they are not directly employed by the team.