Charlie Hustle Snubbed a Third Time

[HawgWild]

I know December is not a busy time for baseball discussion but I saw this in today's newspaper.

[ghostzapper]

Right decision.

[jrulz83]

According to the rule he violated he is permanently ineligible from MLB. Case closed.

An excerpt from 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.

[ghostzapper]

He agreed to it and hasn't shown any indication that, if reinstated into baseball, he wouldn't continue betting on it.  Nothing difficult about this decision.

[DeltaBoy]

They need to end this vendetta and let Charlie Hustle into the HOF.  :razorback:

[jrulz83]

They need to end this vendetta and let Charlie Hustle into the HOF.  :razorback:

Hmm, following the rules is a vendetta?

[Jacob "2 Scoops" Johnson]

FREE CHARLIE

[ghostzapper]

Ruling had nothing to do with HOF.  Take that complaint up with voters.

[ErieHog]

Keep him out, for life.

[yraciv]

Hmm, following the rules is a vendetta?

He broke the rules and has been punished for it for 30 years.  The way that rule is written is open ended, permanently ineligible to play, coach, be inducted into the Hall of fame?

Pete Rose is a liar and from everything I've heard was a bit of an [CENSORED].  That being said he was a damn good ballplayer/manager that deserves to be in the HOF.  He did not fix games, which is what I'd consider cheating the game.  Betting on your team because you are addicted to gambling isn't what I'd consider a huge sin.  By the letter of the rule, sure it deserves punishment, possibly deserves the ban from ever playing/coaching again.  I draw the line with Hall of Fame placement because it has no impact on his career and steroid users who actually did cheat the game are eligible for that.

I also feel MLB continuously has toyed with Rose.  Temporarily lifting the ban to parade him around the All Star Game, gain ratings, only to maintain it 6 months later is bs.

[jrulz83]

He broke the rules and has been punished for it for 30 years.  The way that rule is written is open ended, permanently ineligible to play, coach, be inducted into the Hall of fame?

Pete Rose is a liar and from everything I've heard was a bit of an [CENSORED].  That being said he was a damn good ballplayer/manager that deserves to be in the HOF.  He did not fix games, which is what I'd consider cheating the game.  Betting on your team because you are addicted to gambling isn't what I'd consider a huge sin.  By the letter of the rule, sure it deserves punishment, possibly deserves the ban from ever playing/coaching again.  I draw the line with Hall of Fame placement because it has no impact on his career and steroid users who actually did cheat the game are eligible for that.

I also feel MLB continuously has toyed with Rose.  Temporarily lifting the ban to parade him around the All Star Game, gain ratings, only to maintain it 6 months later is bs.

You think the Reds didn't have a hand in him being at the AS Game and besides that what duty in connection with the on the field competition did he perform? So did they lift the ban or was he just like any other dignitary? The Hall of Fame doesn't currently allow people on the permanently ineligible list to be in the Hall. They're a totally different entity from MLB so maybe you ought to take it up with them.

There are huge signs in every clubhouse that have Rule 21 on it, they've been there for years . He likely walked by one every day of his career. He willfully broke that rule even though he knew of the consequences. Here is what it looks like:



Here is the problem with this whole thing, there has to be some sort of punishment when you break the rules, there just has to. It seems that because he was a great player everybody wants to judge him on a different set of standards instead of as a "regular" player. How is that fair to the regular guy? Speaking as someone that has managed a youth basketball league and been on the wrong end of bad league management, I can tell you that when leadership applies a different set of rules in every situation then there are no rules. It degenerates into total chaos. MLB is absolutely doing the right thing by keeping him out.

Unfortunately in our pussified society everyone wants to make excuses, like "He didn't fix any games" or "He only bet on his team to win." It doesn't matter who he is or what he accomplished, he knowingly broke the (probably) most sacred rule of MLB. He has to pay, and his punishment is a permanent ineligibility until a commissioner sees fit to reinstate him.

[yraciv]

Unfortunately in our pussified society everyone wants to make excuses, like "He didn't fix any games" or "He only bet on his team to win." It doesn't matter who he is or what he accomplished, he knowingly broke the (probably) most sacred rule of MLB. He has to pay, and his punishment is a permanent ineligibility until a commissioner sees fit to reinstate him.

The words does the crime fit the punishment come to mind.  Yes he screwed up, yes he deserved to be punished.  Should his punishment be the equivalent to what occurred to the Black Sox who obviously threw games? That is debatable!  When the ban was given, not all the facts were in place.  It wasn't evident the level of how much and who he bet on.  More research has come in on the matter, which points to the fact he didn't compromise the integrity of the game by throwing games and betting against his team.  Everyone is going to have different opinions on what is an adequate punishment for the crime.  I believe that a lifetime ban is excessive, and 25 year is excessive for that matter. But then again I like to gamble a bit.  My major problems come with MLB's continued inconsistencies on punishing crime/rules breakers, and Pete Rose is the posterboy for that.

[jrulz83]

The words does the crime fit the punishment come to mind.  Yes he screwed up, yes he deserved to be punished.  Should his punishment be the equivalent to what occurred to the Black Sox who obviously threw games? That is debatable!  When the ban was given, not all the facts were in place.  It wasn't evident the level of how much and who he bet on.  More research has come in on the matter, which points to the fact he didn't compromise the integrity of the game by throwing games and betting against his team.  Everyone is going to have different opinions on what is an adequate punishment for the crime.  I believe that a lifetime ban is excessive, and 25 year is excessive for that matter. But then again I like to gamble a bit.  My major problems come with MLB's continued inconsistencies on punishing crime/rules breakers, and Pete Rose is the posterboy for that.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime if you apply the rule. The Hall of Fame is absolutely following their set of rules by not allowing him in. They both have the right to set the rules they want to play by. They owe Pete Rose absolutely nothing, he is the perpetrator of the crime.

I'm so over this victim society we live. It's gotten to the point that the person performing the wrong are able to play the victim, it's totally backwards.

[ChicoHog]

If Rose would have come clean back in the day and apologized for his actions, got help, proved he was no longer gambling and showed contrition he might have got in the HOF.  But because he was such a jerk and denied it and lied constantly he has lost my sympathy for sure and probably many others. 

[HawgWild]

Not as up on this as I should be seeing as I started the thread but are there no HoF members that had the slightest taint from HGH/steroid use? Just asking.

[yraciv]

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were involved in a fixed game. Gaylord Perry doctored baseballs his entire pitching career.

[HawgWild]

I understand no betting. But there is definitely a difference in betting your team will win versus betting your team to lose. In one you better be giving 100%, in the other, nah, not so much.

[yraciv]

I understand no betting. But there is definitely a difference in betting your team will win versus betting your team to lose. In one you better be giving 100%, in the other, nah, not so much.

Yeah and it is hard to believe a player nicknamed Charlie Hustle ever gave anything but 100%.

[ErieHog]

I understand no betting. But there is definitely a difference in betting your team will win versus betting your team to lose. In one you better be giving 100%, in the other, nah, not so much.

There is no effective difference, particularly if it changes how you manage.

Say you have a short term bet on your own team;  you have a starter going tomorrow, who, for the good of the team's long term goals, could use a rest.   In the short term, though, you need him to go tomorrow to win your bet, or to pitch deeper into the game-- so, you run him out there, against the team's long term interests,  but in favor of both your team winning the next game, and your short term financial interests.

So, no--  there's no  'he only bet his team to win' excuse.

Rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball,  one that had known consequences for 60 or more years.

He deserves to never darken the doorway of the Hall.

[yraciv]

Say you have a short term bet on your own team;  you have a starter going tomorrow, who, for the good of the team's long term goals, could use a rest.   In the short term, though, you need him to go tomorrow to win your bet, or to pitch deeper into the game-- so, you run him out there, against the team's long term interests,  but in favor of both your team winning the next game, and your short term financial interests.

So, no--  there's no  'he only bet his team to win' excuse.

You are reaching there. Those Reds staffs didn't exactly have dominating aces unless you consider Tom Browning one.  I guess technically he could have skipped the last starter for a Browning start every once in a while, placing the bet when they thought the last guy would go.  Which would give him a minimal advantage, but most bookies aren't dumb enough to let that happen from the Reds Player/Manager.  I would think they let him place the bet, but  the SP listed had to start or no action.  This was in the era of all bets are on paper, dealing with the bookie in person.  It would have been a lot easier in today's betting society because these bets are booked online.

Considering his gambling style.  The easiest way for Pete Rose to make money was keep his job, so one would assume he managed/bet with a long term philosophy on his mind.

[ErieHog]

You are reaching there. Those Reds staffs didn't exactly have dominating aces unless you consider Tom Browning one.  I guess technically he could have skipped the last starter for a Browning start every once in a while, placing the bet when they thought the last guy would go.  Which would give him a minimal advantage, but most bookies aren't dumb enough to let that happen from the Reds Player/Manager.  I would think they let him place the bet, but  the SP listed had to start or no action.  This was in the era of all bets are on paper, dealing with the bookie in person.  It would have been a lot easier in today's betting society because these bets are booked online.

Considering his gambling style.  The easiest way for Pete Rose to make money was keep his job, so one would assume he managed/bet with a long term philosophy on his mind.

I'm really not reaching.   Rose broke the competitive integrity of the game, even if he only bet on his own team to win.

He should never be rehabilitated.

[HawgWild]

There is no effective difference, particularly if it changes how you manage.

Say you have a short term bet on your own team;  you have a starter going tomorrow, who, for the good of the team's long term goals, could use a rest.   In the short term, though, you need him to go tomorrow to win your bet, or to pitch deeper into the game-- so, you run him out there, against the team's long term interests,  but in favor of both your team winning the next game, and your short term financial interests.

Your analogy reminds me of the 2009 Indianapolis Colts where their coach chose to bench the starters on the season's last two games when the team was 14-0, so they'd be in good shape for the playoffs. Not sure how well this played in Vegas but, to your point, betting should not be any part of the game. (I can't disagree with that.) BTW - the Colts lost the Super Bowl that year to the NO Saints.

[yraciv]

Your analogy reminds me of the 2009 Indianapolis Colts where their coach chose to bench the starters on the season's last two games when the team was 14-0, so they'd be in good shape for the playoffs. Not sure how well this played in Vegas but, to your point, betting should not be any part of the game. (I can't disagree with that.) BTW - the Colts lost the Super Bowl that year to the NO Saints.

Betting is a beautiful thing  and the most enjoyable part of the game to many spectators.  It should be legalized nationwide, and enjoyed by all spectators who choose to indulge.  Of course I think players/coaches should not be able to bet on their sports because they can compromise the integrity of the game, but throwing games in my mind is by and away the worse thing you can do to accomplish that.  I don't see how a bet to win on yourself does that.

And irrelevant, but the Colts benching's were widely known prior to the game, so the Vegas lines adjusted for that.