24 years playing career and i don’t think he was ever on the injured list. think about all the players nowadays who have to sit out because of “soreness” or “stiffness.”
OT: RIP Charlie Hustle
- Thread starter chroix
- Start date
Pete Rose was a hell of a ball player. One of the best ever.
BUT, Pete broke the cardinal rule of baseball. He then lied about it, and for years made a financial gain off his lies. Then a couple decades later he decided to come clean (probably for the attention). Had he come clean from day 1, it may have been a different outcome. I love Pete Rose the player, but he made his own bed. The steroids angle is an apples to oranges comparison.
BUT, Pete broke the cardinal rule of baseball. He then lied about it, and for years made a financial gain off his lies. Then a couple decades later he decided to come clean (probably for the attention). Had he come clean from day 1, it may have been a different outcome. I love Pete Rose the player, but he made his own bed. The steroids angle is an apples to oranges comparison.
The fake media with their fake outrage did it. They are to blame.
GOAT, Willie Mays and Ted Williams, might have something to say about that. As for the hall, how do you put a guy in there that bet on games he was managing. Is there any behavior we won't tolerate these days.
I'm right there with you. I may be in the minority, but I still put value in things like character and honor. Things like Hall of Fames get diminished if we dilute criteria. Again, hell of a player, but he made his bed, and was unapologetic about it.
Also, if Shoeless Joe was never allowed back, why should Pete?
How do you have baseball sponsored by fan duel
Snobs and Hippcrits aplenty on this thread.
Unfortunately, I tend to agree, Shoeless Joe is not in the HOF either, IIRC.
Although Pete lied about betting on Reds games for years, and I for one never believed him, I will say that I think he was telling the truth that he never bet against the Reds. As the manager, it would have been way too easy to spot strange moves if he really was betting against his own team, and word would get out, especially from bookies who got screwed taking bets on the Reds, so I do believe him at least on that point.
Pete was my idol growing up, but I always had a big problem with gambling as the Reds manager.
And it's not so easy to just say, "He only bet on the Reds to win".
First of all, I don't think you will ever be able to convince me of that. A degenerate gambler that is gambling to win knows who he is putting on the mound, who is pitching against him, and knows how his team is feeling. If Pete had to gamble, and as an addict, I believe he did, do you think he would bet for the Reds when he had a tired team with his number 5 pitcher going up against Fernando Valenzuela the first game of a road trip after a long flight to LA? Do you honestly think he would just not bet that day? Was he capable of it? I bet in the coming years more evidence will come out.
And lets say he did only bet for the Reds to win. Would you want to play for a manager like that? How many times did he keep a pitcher in too long trying to win his bet? How many players didn't get a night off they probably deserved? How many injuries happened for overplaying a player while trying to win a bet? Lot's of talk that Rose ruined Mario Soto's career by over pitching him. Was that to make the playoffs, or to win bets?
I watched that last HBO special on him, and as much as I want to forgive and like the guy, he still came off as a liar and a complete asshole. I don't know if the Hall will ever let him in, I kinda doubt it, but like someone else has said, Pete totally made his own bed.
I don't think we disagree, you make many good points, which is why betting on games you are managing earns you a lifetime ban.
Instead of hurling insults why don't you offer a cogent argument to support your position.
Steroid use was rampant for so long and widespread in MLB throughout the 90s and continued on in the 2000s. Still to this day idiots will use PEDs and get caught. It is laughable how people will justify the cheating for steroid use with the black eye it was as on the sport for much longer as if it was no big deal, but take a holier than though stance on Pete Rose. Same for the Houston Astros sign-stealing cheating scandal. Hinch and Cora continue to manage in MLB to this day. The Hall of Fame should be consistent in their voting process for all of those who were ever involved in violating MLB rules regardless which ones were broken and directly had an impact on the game. Just be consistent in your judgment.
Lot's of innuendo in that article.
Ortiz never ADMITTED to steroid use. He admitted he was on the list. But that list is questionable and debatable.
Look up the article on the MLBPA statement on Ortiz.
Here are a few snippets:
First, the number of players on the so-called "government list" meaningfully exceeds the number of players agreed by the bargaining parties to have tested positive in 2003. Accordingly, the presence of a player's name on any such list does not necessarily mean that the player used a prohibited substance or that the player tested positive under our collectively bargained program.
Second, substantial scientific questions exist as to the interpretation of some of the 2003 test results. The more definitive methods that are utilized by the lab that administers the current Drug Agreement were not utilized by the lab responsible for the anonymous testing program in 2003. The collective bargaining parties did not pursue definitive answers regarding these inconclusive results, since those answers were unnecessary to the administration of the 2003 program.
Third, in 2003, legally available nutritional supplements could trigger an initial "positive" test under our program. To account for this, each "test" conducted in 2003 actually consisted of a pair of collections: the first was unannounced and random, the second was approximately 7 days later, with the player advised to cease taking supplements during the interim. Under the 2003 program, a test could be initially reported as "positive", but not treated as such by the bargaining parties on account of the second test.
You're going to believe what you want to. A lot of conjectures here and none of this exonerates Ortiz from using substances that gave him an advantage over his peers on the field. He is no different than many players who used the same BS excuse over a combination of 'legal supplements' when they got caught but fail to give specifics of the legal supplements in which he was advised to cease taking. You can look up the following from the NIH website. "Dietary supplements are widely used among athletes, but many may be unaware of the potential for unintentional doping." "18% of the analyzed dietary supplements contained undeclared anabolic steroids or their precursors". The American Medical Association, "Evidence also indicates that use of some dietary supplements carries a risk because the products may contain banned PEDs." By his own admission, says he was careless with the supplements used.
Dude was straight up trash before 2003 with the Twins, gets to Boston and is all of a sudden one of the greatest players in the game naturally? Ortiz said he would follow up on what he tested positive for and to my knowledge never gave that statement. Essentially it got swept under the rug because he is a likable guy. That is suspicious for a player who was tested as much as he had been in his career. If you have a link that contains concrete evidence that exonerates Ortiz, I would like to see it.
Last edited:
Harold Baines - HOF
The whole concept of the HOF went away as soon as he got voted in. It's a watered down joke anymore.
The whole concept of the HOF went away as soon as he got voted in. It's a watered down joke anymore.
Pete Rose death: Coroner reveals new details on passing of MLB legend, former Phillie
In Philadelphia, Rose made four All-Star appearances and helped the Phillies to one of their two world championships during his five seasons from 1979-83.
Baseball is the most boring of the popular professional sports. Even the Pete Rose and the HOF debate is boring.
I loved the Pete Rose player that I grew up watching. I emulated Pete’s playing style as much as I could. I showed my kids how Pete never gave up on a pitch and never threw away an at bat.
Pete Rose bet on baseball. That is the number 1 rule in baseball—-because people need to believe the game is above board and always played to win. For that, I can understand why Pete could never have had anything to do with the actual game again. No managing, no executive role etc.
However, the HOF is not the game. The self righteousness of the writers, baseball execs etc is repugnant. There is no true HOF without Pete. Pete put his numbers up without cheating. He did not get inflated stats from steroids. The HOF is about performance. Pete should be in the HOF and should have been put in long ago with the well documented fact that he is banned from the MLB clearly noted with his display.
I have never looked outside my circle to provide guidance on moral, ethical behavior. Pete had well known issues but I didn’t tell my kids to live like Pete. I told them the one facet of Pete that was unrivaled was how he played the game. Approach your playing sports that way. All out all the time.
Pete Rose deserved to be banned from MLB but he did not deserve to be blackballed from the HOF. But when so many advertisers for baseball are now gambling sites, you can place bets in the stadium, how quickly the Shohei gambling scandal was swept away and no accountability for umpires the hypocrisy of all involved is not surprising.
I am very sad that another piece of my childhood is gone forever.
Pete Rose bet on baseball. That is the number 1 rule in baseball—-because people need to believe the game is above board and always played to win. For that, I can understand why Pete could never have had anything to do with the actual game again. No managing, no executive role etc.
However, the HOF is not the game. The self righteousness of the writers, baseball execs etc is repugnant. There is no true HOF without Pete. Pete put his numbers up without cheating. He did not get inflated stats from steroids. The HOF is about performance. Pete should be in the HOF and should have been put in long ago with the well documented fact that he is banned from the MLB clearly noted with his display.
I have never looked outside my circle to provide guidance on moral, ethical behavior. Pete had well known issues but I didn’t tell my kids to live like Pete. I told them the one facet of Pete that was unrivaled was how he played the game. Approach your playing sports that way. All out all the time.
Pete Rose deserved to be banned from MLB but he did not deserve to be blackballed from the HOF. But when so many advertisers for baseball are now gambling sites, you can place bets in the stadium, how quickly the Shohei gambling scandal was swept away and no accountability for umpires the hypocrisy of all involved is not surprising.
I am very sad that another piece of my childhood is gone forever.
Last edited:
Agree with the first part. I never dig deep enough to notice the second part.
Ok, and you are going to believe what you want to. Which is he is guilty no matter what.
However, once again, I will point out the information from my previous post, which are factual statements that the player list was questionable, the interpretations of the results where questionable, and a positive result did not mean actual PED's that where banned.
To close this out, here is a statement by the Commissioner of baseball, Rob Manfred:
On October 2, 2016, at a press conference at Fenway Park, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said it was "entirely possible" Ortiz did not test positive during the MLB survey drug testing in 2003. The commissioner stated that the alleged failed test should not harm Ortiz's legacy, and that there were "legitimate scientific questions about whether or not those were truly positives". Manfred added "Those particular tests were inconclusive because "it was hard to distinguish between certain substances that were legal, available over the counter, and not banned under our program." He also said "Ortiz has never been a positive at any point under our program" since MLB began testing in 2004 and that it is unfair for Hall of Fame voters to consider "leaks, rumors, innuendo and non-confirmed positive test results" when assessing a player.
So yea, the guy was tested a ton since 2004 and never failed a test. Maybe he took them before 2003 when he was straight trash, like you said, but there is no factual evidence he failed a test in 2003, or any other time until he retired.
And NO, like my initial reason to engage you, he NEVER ADMITTED TO TAKING PED's. If you have a link that contains concrete evidence of Ortiz admitting that, I would like to see it.
This. Pete was too arrogant to bet against his team. You could then argue he wasn't doing anything other than what he should be doing, to win.
Funny, you should mention this - just to day in the paper read an article about Major League Baseball which increased attendance for the second year in a row. First time that's happened in over 10 years. TV ratings were way up over previous year and game time was 2 hours, 36 minutes, on average, shortest in 40 years.
Substance of the article was that MLB had a really good year with the fan base. The new rules to shorten the game have worked great in my opinion.
That being said, there is no accounting for taste.
Soccer is very popular worldwide and I live within a par 5 of UK soccer stadium.And don't remember ever attending a game and have no intention of doing so in the immediate future or of going out to the interstate to watch the new minor league team play - just not into it at all.
Last edited:
Yes, I will believe what I want to and that is the facts as reported to be true. The report said he failed in 2003. Saying he hasn't failed a test "since 2004" when MLB has banned PEDs since '91 does not absolve Ortiz's usage here. The MLBPA who has the players back confirmed the report to be true to Ortiz himself. No one has ever been able to prove otherwise that Big Papi never used PEDs with the supplements he was taking. Players were supplied combinations of supplements that oftentimes contained banned substances and he was ADVISED TO CEASE taking per what you even copied in your previous post. You have yet to provide any concrete evidence to support your claim of David Ortiz's innocence from using PEDs.
Whatever source you are copying and pasting from, Manfred said it was "entirely possible". No where in that vague statement alone did Manfred exonerate Ortiz saying he never failed a drug test. Just so you know, Barry Bonds never failed a Major League-administered PED test before his career ended in 2007. He was exonerated in federal court. Do you think he is innocent as well under the same pretenses that Ortiz never failed a MLB administered test? Still waiting on you to provide that link that proves Ortiz's innocence. I find it to be a load of bullshit as a defense to blame a drug system for "inaccuracies" in determining whether someone pissed hot for a banned substance and since then how all of the drug tests have all been destroyed. How convenient on the part of MLB. Just because it was a survey test to gauge how many people were using PEDs does not mean there were fundamental changes in the testing itself that made the system somehow more accurate a year later. All I can find about a change in testing in 2004 were that these tests would start being implemented on a random basis from the data in the 2003 tests that proved how rampant usage was at the time based on how many failed tests there were. If a player was on that list which Ortiz was confirmed to be by the MLBPA. That sucks for those guys. If they were smart and failed that test, whatever you were on you stopped when random testing began.
I already posted for you where David Ortiz clearly admitted he was "careless" in the supplements that entered his body. It is not my fault that you choose to ignore that statement provided because it does not fit your narrative. There are no provisions in the law for the FDA to approve dietary supplements, and Ortiz claims that the test was triggered by an OTC vitamin he bought. If you are gullible enough to believe that there was nothing banned in those supplements that caused a failed drug test and that he is innocent, that is your choice. He could have easily bought a product at GNC that lacked quality control and contained banned substances that trainers/doctors would know about the risks such as the vitamin he admits to taking even if they were legal to purchase OTC. For many of these players that were popped, they had providers hooking them up with supplements and knew damn well what substances were in them that gives athletes an advantage. There are ZERO reports that fully exonerate him from the failed test in 2003. No matter how many times later Big Papi tries to say he didn't fail. McGwire, Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro all said the same in congress. Hell, Sammy Sosa forgot how to speak English when he went before congress.
Last edited:
I love some of the changes that they’ve made to speed up the game but that’s a bridge too far for me.
I hate sports media (media in general). Revenge nerds who sucked at sports and feel self righteous. Why do these people get a say anyway?
Like I said earlier, I don't really care about the HOF as it's just a museum. I don't fully understand why it's idolized the way it is as it doesn't change anything that actually occurred already. Pete sure cared about it though.
