Pete Rose: Guilty of More Than Gambling

[Parade_Rain]

Go back and read the reporting on the balco case. Read Palmario's report. Any number of people out there have said they thought they were taking stuff to help them recover faster. The obvious implication is that it must have been working or else why take it. Now maybe those players are lying as for motive but maybe they aren't. Either way, my point is that steroids are every bit as much about helping you stay on the field as they are about overall strength. It's why asthma inhalers use steroids because it allows the lungs to recover to normal functioning faster rather than building insane strength in them.

I just think it's rather cynical to view steroids and this type of pain killer in different lights. We're not talking about aspirin here. Repeated use of cortison is believed to lead to deterioration of cartilage. It's every bit as dangerous to use long term as steroids but one is legal in baseball and one isn't. My point here is that there was a time when heroine was a perfectly legal pain killer sold in everything from cough syrup to many other things. MLB only cares about steroids because they muddy their precious history. It has nothing to do or at least very little to do with player safety which is why they should care and which is why they still allow any number of highly questionable things like cortisone as legal.

Regardless, if you don't personally care about pain killers that's your opinion but as I said to brett that doesn't make my view any less valid. I don't distinguish between the two because there is rather clear evidence both aren't good for the player long term. I don't see how MLB sits here and casts down steroids as this great evil while in the background they are allowing just as dangerous to player safety stuff to go down. I'm willing to bet in the next 10 years reporters are going to crucify the NFL and various other sports for this too but no one cares now.

If that's all steroids did, why is no one hitting close to 70 HR, let alone 60 in a season now? People took steroids to gain an edge.

 

[beckdawg]

If that's all steroids did, why is no one hitting close to 70 HR, let alone 60 in a season now? People took steroids to gain an edge.

I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is being able to numb your way through pain at risk to your long term health is not only a real health concern MLB should have but also an edge. Again, I'm not disputing the fact steroids allowed for more offense but I'm also highlighting that part of the reason they are used is they allow your body to recover faster. Obviously there are different types of steroids for different types of things and we're sort of throwing everything together here. Ultimately what I'm trying to get across isn't that steroids should necessarily be legal in MLB. It's that if it isn't steroids it's going to be something else to give people an edge whether that's playing through pain with cortisone, amping people up with amphetamines ... whatever. And to that end, I think it's ridiculous that baseball wants to crucify these steroid players as though players in the 70's weren't taking amphetamines and players now aren't doing various other stuff that is arguably just as bad.

In other words if we're keeping roid users out of the hall of fame then do we go back and take out greenies(amphetamines) users now too because that was technically illegal AFAIK? My issue is that the MLB doesn't care that these players were roiding up. They care because the players got caught and the media made a stink of things and I think it's completely hypocritical to spend literally decades turning a blind eye toward it and then when the media decides it's a problem crucify the players who'd been given every incentive to use. And if you don't believe me on this, go look at the 1996 season where Brady Anderson(a guy who'd never hit more than 21 HRs) went out and hit 50 HRs. His previous best ISO was .182 and in 1996 it went .340. That's 3 years before McGwire hit 70 HRs. No one did jack shit about that or even really mentioned the talk of steroids then and it's pretty painfully obvious something was going on here. And just FYI, that wasn't even Anderson "hitting his prime." Anderson was 32 in 1996.

I guess I'm just tired of hearing the media make the players out to be the bad guys. Rose clearly was a poor role model as a degenerate gambler. But Mickey Mantle as a drunk who went to rehab multiple times isn't much of one either and the media has no problem building him up. The media picks and chooses who to anoint and who to hate. Andy Pettitte is seen in a positive light because he confessed. He's just as guilty as anyone else. ARod probably got in over his had as a 25 year old and made a stupid choice that's going to haunt him the rest of his life. It doesn't make what ARod did right. It makes ARod human just like Rose being a degenerate gambler is probably a medical issue more so than a personal choice. As for the potential corking of bats, Gaylord Perry is in the hall of fame and is a well renowned user of Vaseline on the ball. Literally no one cares. How's that any different than corking a bat? Like I said earlier, for some reason beyond me people seem to have far less issues with pitchers cheating with the ball that corking a bat and I have no idea why. That also extends to pitchers "head hunting."

I think there's a pretty clear double standard being applied here. But I mean if people just want to bash on Rose/cheaters in this thread then by all means don't let me stop you. I just thought people actually wanted to talk about stuff and might have an open mind.

 

[CSF77]

What I've noticed is players were performing at high levels into their 40's. Now 36 is when they hit the brick wall.

I don't care if Rose gets in or not. I doubt he will sniff it as long as he is alive to enjoy it. Now after who knows.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is being able to numb your way through pain at risk to your long term health is not only a real health concern MLB should have but also an edge. Again, I'm not disputing the fact steroids allowed for more offense but I'm also highlighting that part of the reason they are used is they allow your body to recover faster. Obviously there are different types of steroids for different types of things and we're sort of throwing everything together here. Ultimately what I'm trying to get across isn't that steroids should necessarily be legal in MLB. It's that if it isn't steroids it's going to be something else to give people an edge whether that's playing through pain with cortisone, amping people up with amphetamines ... whatever. And to that end, I think it's ridiculous that baseball wants to crucify these steroid players as though players in the 70's weren't taking amphetamines and players now aren't doing various other stuff that is arguably just as bad.

The difference between a pain killer and a steroid is obvious. A pain killer keeps you on the field. Steroids allow one to perform beyond what the healthy human body can do.

 

[beckdawg]

The difference between a pain killer and a steroid is obvious. A pain killer keeps you on the field. Steroids allow one to perform beyond what the healthy human body can do.

You're leaving part of that out. Steroids also allow you to be on the field more. That's the connection I was trying to make. Again, as I said we can quibble over the exact amount steroids are "better" here as they obviously allow you to perform better. All I'm getting at is that pain killers allow you to perform better than you should too. Maybe not better than when you're 100% healthy but if you're say 75% and you numb away the pain to play at 95% you're still enhancing yourself.

Like I totally get what I assume your stance is. if steroids take you over 100% of what you are they taint the numbers and all that. But my argument is injuries and pain are natural things you should have to deal with and this is essentially skirting them by using something that could cause long term risk. It's not identical to steroids but it's surely within the same realm. And to further that point, one is ok and the other apparently isn't.

 

[brett05]

What I've noticed is players were performing at high levels into their 40's. Now 36 is when they hit the brick wall.

I don't care if Rose gets in or not. I doubt he will sniff it as long as he is alive to enjoy it. Now after who knows.

Life time ban. When his life is up, he should be eligible. Shoeless Joe should already be in.

 

[beckdawg]

Life time ban. When his life is up, he should be eligible. Shoeless Joe should already be in.

I'll try not to drag this off topic again but what's the point? Honestly, letting people in when they are dead just seems spiteful. I mean obviously I don't think he should have been banned to begin with. But if you're going to say this is ban worthy then why relent when they die?

 

[Parade_Rain]

You're leaving part of that out. Steroids also allow you to be on the field more. That's the connection I was trying to make. Again, as I said we can quibble over the exact amount steroids are "better" here as they obviously allow you to perform better. All I'm getting at is that pain killers allow you to perform better than you should too. Maybe not better than when you're 100% healthy but if you're say 75% and you numb away the pain to play at 95% you're still enhancing yourself.

Like I totally get what I assume your stance is. if steroids take you over 100% of what you are they taint the numbers and all that. But my argument is injuries and pain are natural things you should have to deal with and this is essentially skirting them by using something that could cause long term risk. It's not identical to steroids but it's surely within the same realm. And to further that point, one is ok and the other apparently isn't.

I haven't left anything out. Steroids ultimately do not allow one to be on the field more. Steroids create injury risks. What steroids do is increase human performance beyond 100%. Thus by using your own figures in your post painkillers may improve a player to 95% of what they normally do. The conclusion is that steroids are a cheat. Painkillers are not.

As for using pain killers I had to use them to even go to work at one point. Was I cheating to earn a paycheck?

 

[brett05]

I'll try not to drag this off topic again but what's the point? Honestly, letting people in when they are dead just seems spiteful. I mean obviously I don't think he should have been banned to begin with. But if you're going to say this is ban worthy then why relent when they die?

It's fulfillment of the punishment. Players are banned for life. When the players life ends they should be removed from the ineligible list. Why do it? For the fans. Why not do it earlier? Because the player is being disciplined for their transgressions.

 

[beckdawg]

I haven't left anything out. Steroids ultimately do not allow one to be on the field more. Steroids create injury risks.. What steroids do is increase human performance beyond 100%. Thus by using your own figures in your post painkillers may improve a player to 95% of what they normally do. The conclusion is that steroids are a cheat. Painkillers are not.

As for using pain killers I had to use them to even go to work at one point. Was I cheating to earn a paycheck?

There are people who would disagree with you. Either way, you should be able to see my point. As for your pay check, if you were taking steroids to get more buff does that mean you're cheating to earn your paycheck? I don't see how that analogy has any relevance to this discussion. A better one would be something like taking adderall or something to enhance you mentally or if we want to stay with steroids let's pretend you're doing something physical like carpentry or moving furniture. If you get roided up there does your owner care that it makes you do your job better?

 

[beckdawg]

It's fulfillment of the punishment. Players are banned for life. When the players life ends they should be removed from the ineligible list. Why do it? For the fans. Why not do it earlier? Because the player is being disciplined for their transgressions.

You realize when Pete Rose dies the vast majority of the fans of Pete Rose will also be dead too right? Like who is the fan service here for?

Honestly, if you want to take an approach like this with Rose and for that matter roid users just make a separate part of the hall of fame where you note what they did wrong as a physical asterisk. Again I'd find that to be kind of hypocritical but it would at least be acknowledging the contributions those players made to the game.

 

[Diehardfan]

I'll try not to drag this off topic again but what's the point? Honestly, letting people in when they are dead just seems spiteful. I mean obviously I don't think he should have been banned to begin with. But if you're going to say this is ban worthy then why relent when they die?

I know this is off topic but what you said always reminds me of the small minded veterans committee that kept Santo out of the Hall till he had passed. In that case, it was spiteful and petty and made me think that so many of those past players that I admired so much were just so full of themselves.

 

[Parade_Rain]

There are people who would disagree with you. Either way, you should be able to see my point. As for your pay check, if you were taking steroids to get more buff does that mean you're cheating to earn your paycheck? I don't see how that analogy has any relevance to this discussion. A better one would be something like taking adderall or something to enhance you mentally or if we want to stay with steroids let's pretend you're doing something physical like carpentry or moving furniture. If you get roided up there does your owner care that it makes you do your job better?

Since I mentioned painkillers and not roids, your post doesn't address my comments. Thanks for filling the interenet up with 1's and 0's though. As for your point. I see it. I don't agree with it. Some felonies are more egregious than others. IE murder is worse than robbery. Pain killers aren't cheating. They are allowing someone to go to work and contribute to the team in an acceptable fashion.

 

[brett05]

You realize when Pete Rose dies the vast majority of the fans of Pete Rose will also be dead too right? Like who is the fan service here for?

Honestly, if you want to take an approach like this with Rose and for that matter roid users just make a separate part of the hall of fame where you note what they did wrong as a physical asterisk. Again I'd find that to be kind of hypocritical but it would at least be acknowledging the contributions those players made to the game.

1) There is quite a bit of stuff in the Hall already for players that aren't allowed to be enshrined.
2) Pete is 74. At max he's got 30 years and it's realistically half that. Most of the voters today will still be voters. And look at those that support Shoeless Joe. It's not an issue about Pete's fans being dead too.
3) You can compare roids to gambling all you want. It's an invalid analogy to me anyways.

 

[Diehardfan]

I haven't left anything out. Steroids ultimately do not allow one to be on the field more. Steroids create injury risks. What steroids do is increase human performance beyond 100%. Thus by using your own figures in your post painkillers may improve a player to 95% of what they normally do. The conclusion is that steroids are a cheat. Painkillers are not.

As for using pain killers I had to use them to even go to work at one point. Was I cheating to earn a paycheck?

What steroids did to the game of baseball and to somewhat of a lesser degree, all sports...is disgraceful. But it just shows you how much money factors into the human spirit where athletes would actually knock off years off their life to make themselves rich. MLB allowed these goofs to turn the game into video game baseball...they knew about it and just let it happen to "bring back the game" after the strike. Morons!!...just look at history. This is the most resilient sport of all. It has come back time and time again from far worse than a strike.

 

[brett05]

What steroids did to the game of baseball and to somewhat of a lesser degree, all sports...is disgraceful. But it just shows you how much money factors into the human spirit where athletes would actually knock off years off their life to make themselves rich. MLB allowed these goofs to turn the game into video game baseball...they knew about it and just let it happen to "bring back the game" after the strike. Morons!!...just look at history. This is the most resilient sport of all. It has come back time and time again from far worse than a strike.

The viewership was at all time highs. Everyone was ok with the offense. I just have troubles saying it was disgraceful.

 

[Diehardfan]

The viewership was at all time highs. Everyone was ok with the offense. I just have troubles saying it was disgraceful.

Cheapening 100 years of baseball's statistical history by playing 10 years of Nintendo baseball is indeed disgraceful particularly when it was practically endorsed by the upper echelon of MLB management.

 

[beckdawg]

1) There is quite a bit of stuff in the Hall already for players that aren't allowed to be enshrined.
2) Pete is 74. At max he's got 30 years and it's realistically half that. Most of the voters today will still be voters. And look at those that support Shoeless Joe. It's not an issue about Pete's fans being dead too.
3) You can compare roids to gambling all you want. It's an invalid analogy to me anyways.

In reference to the roids, they are keeping people who should easily be first ballet HoF out because of it. It's just in this case the *they* is the writers instead of MLB. Either way, my point is people view them as less worthy than people who didn't cheat or didn't gamble or didn't whatever and want that noted some how. It's the same crap they did to Marris with the * on his home run record. I think that was stupid too but to sit here and not include someone like Pete Rose or Barry Bonds in the hall of fame is stupid.

To do it after Rose dies is being petty and spiteful. Again, I'm not saying Rose handled the situation well or as I would have. Arguably what should have happened was after 15 years MLB should have went to him and said something to the effect of come totally clean and all will be forgiven. People make mistakes and I'm guessing Rose would tell you it was a mistake. Hell, I believe I read he writes "I'm sorry I bet on baseball" on every autograph he does.

I just feel like you put the players in who deservingly should be there and note the objectionable stuff they may have done some where.

 

[beckdawg]

Cheapening 100 years of baseball's statistical history by playing 10 years of Nintendo baseball is indeed disgraceful particularly when it was practically endorsed by the upper echelon of MLB management.

Here's the problem with this arguing over statistics. Soon as the MLB started adding more teams you immediately cheapen the stats. More players means less quality per team. Soon as you add more games to the schedule you cheapen the statistics. Soon as you change the height of the mound you cheapen the statistics. That's one of the reasons I don't find steroids anywhere near as objectionable as most. You really need to view the game in eras. The 90's and 2000's were the steroid era but they were also the expansion era adding Miami, Colorado, Arizona and Tampa. How much did adding 100 more players to the majors(25 per active man roster) water down the game?

I'm not defending the league here as I clearly think they are as dirty as anyone. I just think people need to realize that baseball is a game that's always been about finding some edge whether it's legal or illegal. Part of the reason I love the game is that in a lot of respects it's still the wild west. You have card cheat pitchers getting caught putting resin or something like it on their arm. You have the cardinals hacking into another teams computers. You have tons of shady stuff going on and to me that makes it a bit more compelling than the NFL right now which is trying to make everything about it as child-proof as possible.

 

[brett05]

Cheapening 100 years of baseball's statistical history by playing 10 years of Nintendo baseball is indeed disgraceful particularly when it was practically endorsed by the upper echelon of MLB management.

Given that pitchers took it too we really don't know that it did any of that. And one could make the same argument for Greenies hurting the game. Steve Stone did.