Pete Rose, 20 years later...HOF or not?

[bobarian]

After thinking about this for a couple of days, I voted no. But I am not against him being enshrined if the Vet's committee votes him in. I think they are a much better judge that the sportswriters in this situation. His stats as a player speak for themselves, but his actions as a manager and his willingness to lie for so many years leaves me with concerns.

As for the PED users, I think that is a more difficult issue. Many used before bans were enacted, many are suspected. Many are shown to have used under testing standards that are not acceptable today. Do we just throw out the past 25 years under assumption that all the records are tainted?

[MedicCook]

Originally Posted by bobarian

As for the PED users, I think that is a more difficult issue. Many used before bans were enacted, many are suspected. Many are shown to have used under testing standards that are not acceptable today. Do we just throw out the past 25 years under assumption that all the records are tainted?

There may not have been any MLB bans but steroids were still an illegal item to be using without a legitimate perscription from a doctor. They still broke the law.

[bobarian]

Originally Posted by MedicCook

There may not have been any MLB bans but steroids were still an illegal item to be using without a legitimate perscription from a doctor. They still broke the law.

I dont believe that would disqualify a player under the current rules of the Hall.
Pete was banned due to a violation of the morals clause. Same reason Willie Mays was prevented from working for a NJ casino, associating with gamblers is specifically prohibited.

[Ashcan Bill]

Originally Posted by icehog3

My opinion? In. Guilty by association, not because of personal wrong-doing.

Originally Posted by joed

I agree.

Originally Posted by MedicCook

I also agree. The players involved even stated that Shoeless Joe did not take any money.

As do I. The evidence against him is questionable.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by bobarian

After thinking about this for a couple of days, I voted no. But I am not against him being enshrined if the Vet's committee votes him in. I think they are a much better judge that the sportswriters in this situation.

I believe that is the only way he can get in, Bob, as they did not "stop the clock" regarding his 15 years of eligibilty during the ban.

[bobarian]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I believe that is the only way he can get in, Bob, as they did not "stop the clock" regarding his 15 years of eligibilty during the ban.

Yes. Its up to the Vets committee. I said this meaning that if the Vets approve him being in their hall then its kind of like your mom allowing a friend in who you dont like. Its their house.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by bobarian

Yes. Its up to the Vets committee. I said this meaning that if the Vets approve him being in their hall then its kind of like your mom allowing a friend in who you dont like. Its their house.

Word, My Brother.