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