Mets RHP Jenrry Mejia suspended by MLB for 3rd substance violation (UPD: signs with Red Sox)

[ArchAngel55]

4 strikes and you're out.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

 

[Dr Pepper]

How does a lifetime ban get lifted, again?

Asking for research purposes.

 

[John Price]

this title is misleading I was not aware the suspension had been reversed

@Marc the Habs Fan

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

How does a lifetime ban get lifted, again?

Asking for research purposes.

Mejia didn't lie for 30 years while selling autographs to kids because he's a complete dick of a human being, then decide to sell a tell-all book where he then lied and lied and lied all over again.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Mejia didn't lie for 30 years while selling autographs to kids because he's a complete dick of a human being, then decide to sell a tell-all book where he then lied and lied and lied all over again.

Give him time.

And yeah, Pete Rose isn't exactly a beacon of morality.

But I'm still of the mindset that a player's entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame should be based solely on his contributions on the field as a player. Nothing Pete Rose did as a player was tainted like it would have been by illegal PED use.

Now, that said, back in his day it was far more common so maybe he was a user to. Everyone was using "greenies" or whatever they were called. But back then it was common, and allowed.

But to say, "we don't like that you bet on your team to win while you were managing, so everything you did as a player is irrelevant", that just doesn't sit right with me. Bury him all you want for his managerial or post-retirement transgressions, but his career numbers warrant a place in the Hall.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Give him time.

And yeah, Pete Rose isn't exactly a beacon of morality.

But I'm still of the mindset that a player's entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame should be based solely on his contributions on the field as a player. Nothing Pete Rose did as a player was tainted like it would have been by illegal PED use.

Now, that said, back in his day it was far more common so maybe he was a user to. Everyone was using "greenies" or whatever they were called. But back then it was common, and allowed.

But to say, "we don't like that you bet on your team to win while you were managing, so everything you did as a player is irrelevant", that just doesn't sit right with me. Bury him all you want for his managerial or post-retirement transgressions, but his career numbers warrant a place in the Hall.

He was betting while he played, though. He ruined any chance he had by lying to mlb for decades.

 

[Dr Pepper]

He was betting while he played, though. He ruined any chance he had by lying to mlb for decades.

Did he ever bet on the Reds to lose, and then NOT hustle, to throw the game? If he bet on the Reds to win I still don't see how it's a problem. Doubt he'd have been the only player to do so, either. Maybe the only one to ever get caught doing it.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Did he ever bet on the Reds to lose, and then NOT hustle, to throw the game? If he bet on the Reds to win I still don't see how it's a problem. Doubt he'd have been the only player to do so, either. Maybe the only one to ever get caught doing it.

There's likely nothing proving Rose didn't bet against the Reds, and his decades of lying remove any chance he could be taken at his word.

Mlb proved he bet, which is the ultimate no-no in the sport. It's frowned upon much more than any substance a player could put in their body. Betting on games either played in or managed questions the integrity of those games for many reasons. Even if he bet for his team to win, that means he could have put players in vulnerable positions (like playing tired/banged up players when they shouldn't be playing) just so he could potentially win money.

With a doper they're only harming themselves. Betting is a lot more complex.

 

[Dr Pepper]

There's likely nothing proving Rose didn't bet against the Reds, and his decades of lying remove any chance he could be taken at his word.

Mlb proved he bet, which is the ultimate no-no in the sport. It's frowned upon much more than any substance a player could put in their body. Betting on games either played in or managed questions the integrity of those games for many reasons. Even if he bet for his team to win, that means he could have put players in vulnerable positions (like playing tired/banged up players when they shouldn't be playing) just so he could potentially win money.

With a doper they're only harming themselves. Betting is a lot more complex.

I'm not sure.....imagine if Joe Carter hits a World-Series winning home run, and then it turns out he was juicing all year. Kind of puts a tarnish on it, don't you think? Now Carter's not exactly HOF-bound anyways but I think PED's are more detrimental to a player's HOF chances than gambling should be.

Especially if, as stated, it can't be proven that Rose deliberately sabotaged any of the games in which he played or managed. PED use, on the other hand, can be proven.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

I'm not sure.....imagine if Joe Carter hits a World-Series winning home run, and then it turns out he was juicing all year. Kind of puts a tarnish on it, don't you think? Now Carter's not exactly HOF-bound anyways but I think PED's are more detrimental to a player's HOF chances than gambling should be.

Especially if, as stated, it can't be proven that Rose deliberately sabotaged any of the games in which he played or managed. PED use, on the other hand, can be proven.

It's all about perspective. What do we deem as a ped? I like that you mentioned greenies because amphetamines would have a great impact on seeing the ball better and recovering from tiredness/injury.

Players have always taken things to try and gain an advantage. 99.9% of the things players take are made to be as untraceable as possible. There's a lot less of a paper trail with them compared to bets, too.

 

[Dr Pepper]

It's all about perspective. What do we deem as a ped? I like that you mentioned greenies because amphetamines would have a great impact on seeing the ball better and recovering from tiredness/injury.

Players have always taken things to try and gain an advantage. 99.9% of the things players take are made to be as untraceable as possible. There's a lot less of a paper trail with them compared to bets, too.

Well I wasn't around when those greenies were taken but from what I've heard the players were a lot more cavalier about it back then. No hush-hush, no inquiries or subpoenas, players on the stands insisting they never used it.

It was commonplace, and, as you said, used to pep up the players. Give them an added advantage on the playing field, something that if taken today would obviously be frowned upon.

Obviously today there's a lot more secrecy, I'm sure there are still players using performance-enhancing drugs today, and I'm sure we'll see some suspensions handed out this season, whether it's to major leaguers or some prospect riding the bus in the minors.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Well I wasn't around when those greenies were taken but from what I've heard the players were a lot more cavalier about it back then. No hush-hush, no inquiries or subpoenas, players on the stands insisting they never used it.

It was commonplace, and, as you said, used to pep up the players. Give them an added advantage on the playing field, something that if taken today would obviously be frowned upon.

Obviously today there's a lot more secrecy, I'm sure there are still players using performance-enhancing drugs today, and I'm sure we'll see some suspensions handed out this season, whether it's to major leaguers or some prospect riding the bus in the minors.

If I had my way these players could hook their arms up to a tire inflator and fill it until they're bigger than Bonds' head. It's easier to just enjoy the greatness of the game without worrying about things that will likely never be proven.

They STILL haven't proven what Bonds or Clemens put into their bodies, yet they keep getting left out of Cooperstown, which is a shame.

 

[robert terwilliger]

pete rose broke literally the only rule mlb had at the time, lied about it for years and only came clean to sell books. then we found out when bertolini's notebook was found that he wasn't even telling the whole truth about that. he's been lying for three decades.

initially: "i didn't bet on baseball."
got books to sell: "i bet on baseball, but never the reds."
bertolini's notebook is found: "i bet on the reds but never against them."

when the all-star game was in cincinnati, rose met with manfred about being involved in the celebrations and told manfred that he still f***ing bets on baseball! even after he ruined his life and legacy with gambling he's still doing it! he's never sought help; he's never really apologized for lying for three decades; he just expects to be taken as he is. "i'm pete rose. yeah i bet on baseball, so what?" go f*** yourself.

 

[Dr Pepper]

I guess I'm just stuck on the part where the league chooses to completely ignore his on-field accolades, which had zero impact on the betting that came afterwards.

Who is the all-time major league hits king, if the league chooses to pretend Pete Rose didn't exist?

You can throw his personality, or moral compass, in the hall of shame, but his career belongs in the hall of fame.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

So Rose lying disqualifies him but the PED generation not admitting using and lying isn't issue?

Frankly the PED users until they come clean and upfront about what they did should be held out of HOF as well

I mean it is the standard being preached here

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

So Rose lying disqualifies him but the PED generation not admitting using and lying isn't issue?

Frankly the PED users until they come clean and upfront about what they did should be held out of HOF as well

I mean it is the standard being preached here

Agreed. Plus, this guys is coming back and playing! Rose has been banned for what, 35 years now? Give me a break.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

So Rose lying disqualifies him but the PED generation not admitting using and lying isn't issue?

Frankly the PED users until they come clean and upfront about what they did should be held out of HOF as well

I mean it is the standard being preached here

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Ped users are a dime a dozen. There is only Pete Rose. If people can't see why what he has done is a bigger deal than the Larry Bigbie's of the world ending up on a Mitchell report, then there is no more discussion to be had.

 

[Dr Pepper]

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Ped users are a dime a dozen. There is only Pete Rose. If people can't see why what he has done is a bigger deal than the Larry Bigbie's of the world ending up on a Mitchell report, then there is no more discussion to be had.

My one hang-up on this remains how his on-field performance, which used to be the sole reason the players even got into the HOF in the first place, is HOF-worthy.

There's no denying that.

Judge him all you want, as I'm sure the baseball world has and will continue to do so, for his post-career transgressions and flaws, but choosing to willfully and permanently ignore what he did on the field due to some shape-shifting code of ethics that he broke years after he stopped playing? That doesn't make sense to me.

It could be argued that his playing career makes him more valid an entry than anyone currently in the HOF (or on the ballot), whose playing career was knowingly tainted by PED use. Where's the code of ethics on that? I guess that's why Bonds and Clemens are still in limbo.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

My one hang-up on this remains how his on-field performance, which used to be the sole reason the players even got into the HOF in the first place, is HOF-worthy.

There's no denying that.

Judge him all you want, as I'm sure the baseball world has and will continue to do so, for his post-career transgressions and flaws, but choosing to willfully and permanently ignore what he did on the field due to some shape-shifting code of ethics that he broke years after he stopped playing? That doesn't make sense to me.

It could be argued that his playing career makes him more valid an entry than anyone currently in the HOF (or on the ballot), whose playing career was knowingly tainted by PED use. Where's the code of ethics on that? I guess that's why Bonds and Clemens are still in limbo.

The problem is there are few players they can actually prove did them. Guys like Mejia are rare because most guys have learned how to dope and pass their tests. With Bonds and Clemens they have nothing but speculation. They never proved what they took nor did their people rat them out (specifically Bonds).

What Rose did has a paper trail. Add the fact he destroyed every possible avenue back into baseball by continuing to lie and play the victim. The game gave him ample opportunities to come clean and be forgiven and he's yet to genuinely do that.

Plus after he ended Ray Fosse's career in an exhibition game he can go to hell.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

The problem is there are few players they can actually prove did them. Guys like Mejia are rare because most guys have learned how to dope and pass their tests. With Bonds and Clemens they have nothing but speculation. They never proved what they took nor did their people rat them out (specifically Bonds).

What Rose did has a paper trail. Add the fact he destroyed every possible avenue back into baseball by continuing to lie and play the victim. The game gave him ample opportunities to come clean and be forgiven and he's yet to genuinely do that.

Plus after he ended Ray Fosse's career in an exhibition game he can go to hell.

Guys like Mejia are rare because the rules are clear, 3 strikes you're out. Not, 3 strikes, we'll let you back in after a year.

 

[Dr Pepper]

The problem is there are few players they can actually prove did them. Guys like Mejia are rare because most guys have learned how to dope and pass their tests. With Bonds and Clemens they have nothing but speculation. They never proved what they took nor did their people rat them out (specifically Bonds).

What Rose did has a paper trail. Add the fact he destroyed every possible avenue back into baseball by continuing to lie and play the victim. The game gave him ample opportunities to come clean and be forgiven and he's yet to genuinely do that.

Plus after he ended Ray Fosse's career in an exhibition game he can go to hell.

I guess the lying just doesn't concern me as much. Yeah he's a jerk, but so was Ty Cobb (allegedly), as well as half the players in the league before they broke the colour barrier. Some most likely were unchanged in their thinking even afterwards, I'll bet. But they still got voted in, based on how they played the game.

With Rose there's just too much emphasis on personality and not enough on his actual talent.

 

[robert terwilliger]

So Rose lying disqualifies him but the PED generation not admitting using and lying isn't issue?

Frankly the PED users until they come clean and upfront about what they did should be held out of HOF as well

I mean it is the standard being preached here

the difference between the two is that rose was declared permanently ineligible for the hall of fame, same as the other people who bet on baseball.

i could see a commissioner putting him in if he came clean, admitted what he bet on baseball, admitted he had a problem and was upfront about his problems and seeking help because he knew that participants betting on a game while playing and/or managing in it calls into question the integrity of the sport.

rose didn't do that and he never has. he's come clean with just enough to benefit himself. the difference between what rose and what alleged ped users did or didn't do are:

1- we have evidence that pete rose bet on baseball. there was enough evidence for giamatti to throw him out of the game to begin with and the evidence has only piled up with the more he's admitted over the years.
2- we have no evidence of alleged ped users using anything since there was no drug testing in baseball until 2006.
3- we know that ped users are already in the hall of fame. people who bet on baseball aren't.

i agree that rose should probably be in on the merits of his long career. he was a bit of a compiler near the end but whatever. the problem is that he's permanently ineligible for breaking the one rule that is posted in the clubhouse of every single team. it's clear: break this one rule and you'll be permanently banned forever. pete walked by this rule for over 4,000 games as a player and player/manager and eventually as a manager. he knew the rule and the consequences and did it anyway.

bonds and clemens never failed a drug test because baseball literally couldn't give a shit what players were taking. what we're seeing now is writers litigating players because it's easier than doing it when they were active and the writers needed a quote. it's absolute cowardice. turn a blind eye for decades, then litigate the players when you're left defining their legacy. the hall of fame is not a museum of morality despite what some writers think; there are some awful human beings in the hall of fame. barry bonds and roger clemens are legitimately two of the best players in the history of the sport. keeping them out as some twisted morality tale says less about them and more about the people too chickenshit to see they're part of the problem.

 

[KMart27]

I guess I'm just stuck on the part where the league chooses to completely ignore his on-field accolades, which had zero impact on the betting that came afterwards.

Who is the all-time major league hits king, if the league chooses to pretend Pete Rose didn't exist?

You can throw his personality, or moral compass, in the hall of shame, but his career belongs in the hall of fame.

I don't see it this way. His accolades haven't been ignored and everybody is well aware that he exists. If you look at a list of the all time hit leaders, his name still appears at the top. Anybody who wants to learn more about his career has plenty of resources they can access. He broke a rule that he knew was a rule and he knew if he got caught he would be banned from baseball. This is 100% on him.

Mejia being allowed back is a joke. This absurd decision doesn't mean more absurd decisions are warranted.