Pete Rose Attempting to Seek Reinstatement Again

UKnCincy_rivals

New member
Aug 2, 2008
3,504
4,024
0
I get you were saying, you think it's less wrong because the Astros were trying to win. It's a weird rationale, but it is what it is.

So is it fair to say that you view doing something to gain an unfair advantage to be just as bad as throwing a game?

In other words, you’d say that what the Astros did is just as bad as what the 1919 White Sox did. Is that a fair assessment of your point of view?
 

kyblue'92

Member
Apr 23, 2018
3,936
4,707
38
What I gather is people take a selective outrage towards Pete's transgressions in MLB. Conveniently they'll say those involved in PED's/Sign Stealing Etc that knowingly violated the integrity of the game shouldn't be held in the same regard as bad because their intention was to win. Neither were right. Jobs were lost and people's lives changed as a result of teams that lost to Houston in this. Goes without saying these were high paying jobs but that has no bearing on right or wrong what Houston did. Not to mention the outcome of games that were changed with so many using PED's in the steroid era.

If you think MLB is clean as an organization, I suggest you watch the Netflix documentary of Anthony Bosch in regards to Biogenesis. If you think it's not truthful, you're free to do your own research but I doubt you will look for what doesn't fit your agendas. Be for it all or against it all. Let them all be reinstated or ban them all.

MLB has opened themselves up to this criticism with their inconsistencies. Letting Jenrry Mejia back in baseball 2 years after his lifetime banishment for failing 3 tests for PEDs. Being a Reds fan (a life long one myself) doesn't mean my argument has more validity than anyone else one way or another. People act like Rose is the only person in the modern era to commit an offense therefore nothing else can measure up to it. I'm not saying whether he should or shouldn't be reinstated. It's none of our decisions anyway but baseball best start punishing everyone consistently and where it counts if they want a legit game to be played on the field.
 
Last edited:

J_Dee

New member
Mar 21, 2008
4,284
4,317
0
Rose even agreed to the lifetime ban (partially to end an investigation that was nearly certain to find more)

I respectfully disagree with your use of "partially". The entire reason that Rose so eagerly accepted his lifetime ban was because doing so immediately and permanently stopped MLB's investigation into his gambling just as Dowd was starting to unearth evidence that Rose threw games. :/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ukalum01

Cawood86_rivals

New member
Feb 20, 2005
36,711
64,713
0
So is it fair to say that you view doing something to gain an unfair advantage to be just as bad as throwing a game?

In other words, you’d say that what the Astros did is just as bad as what the 1919 White Sox did. Is that a fair assessment of your point of view?
So cheating to win is the better form of cheating? Is that you view?
 

Catman100

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2003
6,689
9,639
96
I’ll take that as a yes, meaning you do consider them to be equivalent.

Do you believe that the Astros players involved in stealing signs should face jail time as punishment for their cheating?

Jail time? Seriously?
 

UKnCincy_rivals

New member
Aug 2, 2008
3,504
4,024
0
Jail time? Seriously?

He stated that he considered cheating to gain an unfair advantage (e.g., stealing signs) to be equally as bad as throwing games. So for example, he would consider what the Astros did to be just as bad as the 1919 White Sox.

Throwing games is a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison under federal law (sentences can be higher under some state laws).

If you truly believe that cheating of any sort is just as bad as throwing games, then it’s appropriate to ask whether you believe those other forms of cheating should also be classified as criminal offenses.

After all, “cheating is cheating”. Or so I’ve been told.