I'm speaking of the ones who state that Rose's actions while a manager should only eliminate him from induction as a manager. (Because we all know how great he was at that - what with all the World Series, pennants and Division Championships he won) Will any of them get it, or will they simply take that one excuse off the long list we've come to expect from them?
Coffee Drinker
Favorite Answer
Pete Rose apologists have been denying simple facts for so long that they won't even notice one or two more.
Its like a 500lb man eating another cheeseburger: it doesn't even matter anymore.
EDIT: Bob - even betting on his own team can influence his decision making as a manager. Maybe he strategically picked when to give his star players a day off based on which games he had bet on. Maybe his decision about whether to leave a pitcher in the game with a high pitch count or pull him to keep him fresh for later in the season were influenced by the size of the bet he had made that day.
The point is that it COULD have influenced his decision making, and therefore it tarnished the image of fair & neutral competition which is a critical element in professional sports.
David
These latest revelations don't surprise me at all. Pete's been a scumbag for decades and nothing new could make me respect him less. As for the apologists, I question whether they will ever get it. Now THAT would be surprising.
Edit: Bob is wrong when he says Rose admitted it over 20 years ago. He firmly denied it for 14 years until he finally admitted it in 2004 to sell books. In other words, he only admitted it 11 years ago. And that wasn't for any other reason that to make Pete Rose money. And he still has never admitted that he gambled as a player.
Chipmaker Authentic
Nah. The Rose fans, groupies, enablers, and apologists staked their claim long ago and, while a few might reconsider, they will be a distinct minority. The pro-Rose faction never changes, as can easily be seen by a cursory review of their favorite screeds.
They ll just double down (heh heh, of course) on the ever-popular "he never bet AGAINST his Reds!" gambit, and continue not to acknowledge that how bets are laid makes no damn difference. These people have their favorite, well-worn threads of hope, and it s all they ve got left, so let them have their way, though I do prefer if they d do it much more quietly.
18 gibbs 20
The Pete Rose apologists have never cared about the facts. Their opinions on him are based on emotions. So they won't change.
Anonymous
Yes, but that doesn't ask the better question of which is worse for baseball. Gambling or using PEDs?