🚀 go-pugleaf

    Keep the fight going. Pete Rose accomplished his feats before their was
any wrongdoings on his part. They are two seperate incidents. It is well
known that Babe Ruth and others may have done some questionable things in
their lifetime, but I do not hear anyone saying, let's remove him from the
Hall Of Fame.

    Some people (armchair quarterbacks, sports announcers, etc...) are so
quick to judge others. But when they engage in questionable activities
(killing their wife, biting their adultress, etc...) well then it is
alright. What is with the double edge sword?

Rugrat wrote:

> The following letter was sent to NBC, addresses follow for those
> who wish to put in their own two cents worth:
>
> mailto:Sports@MSNBC.com,letters@msnbc.com

According to WXIA, this is NBC's viewer comment number:

212-664-4444

Andrew

In article <19991025213459.26525.qmail@nym.alias.net>, Rugrat
<rugrat@nym.alias.net> wrote:

Actually, it showed the importance of a Free Press.  If the "fans" had
their way, there would never be a tough interview.  Great world that
would be.

B. Martin

<bmartin@utmem.edu> shared with usenet this thought:

>In article <19991025213459.26525.qmail@nym.alias.net>, Rugrat
><rugrat@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
>Actually, it showed the importance of a Free Press.  If the "fans" had
>their way, there would never be a tough interview.  Great world that
>would be.

	But Rose had _already_ been grilled on several different
interview shows beforehand.  This was the bleepin' honoree event that
Gray sprang his ambush at.  What's he trying to do, be the next Jim
Rome?
	What would you think if Bryant Gumbel (or someone who would
draw such duty) came onstage after Miss America was crowned, and
started grilling her about her divorce?  Would you think "what a
tough, crusading journalist that guy is."?


--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
--The Jam

bmartin@utmem.edu wrote:

> Actually, it showed the importance of a Free Press.  If the "fans" had
> their way, there would never be a tough interview.  Great world that
> would be.

There is a time for the "tough" interview and there is a time for the
"regular" interview.  Jim Gray dosen't know the difference.  He should
be sent back to the affiliate level until he can learn the difference.

-- 
rgds,
Scott
KD4YHH
-- -- --
BAN JIM GREY
http://www.mawent.com/synergi/jimgray.html

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:53:06 GMT, in rec.sport.baseball
chollanamdo@mindspring.com (The Sanity Inspector) said meaningfully:

>>Actually, it showed the importance of a Free Press.  If the "fans" had
>>their way, there would never be a tough interview.  Great world that
>>would be.
>
>	But Rose had _already_ been grilled on several different
>interview shows beforehand.  This was the bleepin' honoree event that
>Gray sprang his ambush at.  What's he trying to do, be the next Jim
>Rome?
>	What would you think if Bryant Gumbel (or someone who would
>draw such duty) came onstage after Miss America was crowned, and
>started grilling her about her divorce?  Would you think "what a
>tough, crusading journalist that guy is."?

I would if he had evidence that the Miss America cheated to be there.

Pete Rose cheated.  He got caught.






Julie Carter
--
jsgoddess@jsgoddess.ourfamily.com

http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
ICQ:  1265510

In article <7vca3c$haj$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, manfred@flashmail.com 
says...

[...]

> Which begs the greater question - if Rose did (and I myself am not sure he
> did) bet on baseball and is banned for life, why are chronic drug offenders
> ( Howe comes immediately to mind) banned and then reinstated a short time
> later?  Baseball should either give Pete three or four more opportunities to
> screw up, or ditch the drug abusers and other criminal offenders permanently
> and with no reinstatement.

There's a very good reason why MLB doesn't ban chronic drug offenders for 
life.  Specifically, they don't have the power to do so unless it's 
negotiated into the CBA.  The Howe case, in which MLB tried to ban Howe 
for life, but failed, pretty much established that.

-- 
Dan Szymborski
Czerny@msn.com

Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
: 
: manfred wrote in message <7va68b$3qt$1@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
: >
: >JAS Carter <jsgoddess@geocities.com> wrote in message
: >news:383497de.1922002613@news.supernews.com...
: >> On 28 Oct 1999 11:09:12 -0400, in rec.sport.baseball lparker@emory.edu
: >> (Lloyd R. Parker) said meaningfully:
: > <snip>
: >
: >> >Players who use drugs also break the rules of the game.  None of them
: got
: >> >a lifetime ban.
: >>
: >> Drug use may affect the player.  It does not change the nature of the
: >> contest.
: >
: >If drug use affects the player, it necessarily affects the contest.
: 
: Don't be such an idiot. There is a financial gain to be made or lost due to
: his betting, being in a position to affect the outcome of the game is going
: to change that, being addicted to something is not going to have the same
: outcome. Do you understand the term "insider trading"? It's the same thing
: as that, you are committing fraud by placing a bet on a game, then being in
: a position to fix the game, that's why fixing sporting events is illegal.
: 
: 

So is cheating on your taxes, which can affect others.  So is speeding,
which can affect others.  So is cheating customers, etc., etc.  We don't
impose a life sentence for any of these.

Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
: 
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7va6k7$sil$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
: 
: >How about "allegedly"?
: 
: 
: No, he was found guilty and banned from the sport. Half the murderers in
: this world are going to claim they are innocent.

No, he was not found guilty.  A lawyer investigated.  The lawyer presented
his evidence -- his side of the case -- to the commissioner.  How is that
a "found guilty"?  Where was the trial?  Where was the defense?

: 
: >: gambled on a sport that he was involved in. How is that not
: >: considered cheating?
: >
: >1. You haven't proved he gambled on baseball.
: 
: "I" don't have to. It has already been proven by the MLB

No it hasn't, any more than an indictment "proves" a defendant is guilty.

: 
: >2. You haven't proved he gambled on the Reds.
: 
: 
: So? The MLB says you're not allowed to do it, he joined the MLB and broke
: their rules, he shouldn't have joined if he didn't like the rules.

And does MLB say a life sentence is the penalty?

: 
: >3. You haven't proved this affected the outcome of any game.
: 
: 
: He placed himself in a position that he could fix a game, that's all that's
: needed. You don't get a 2nd chance on something like that.

What second chance?  We're talking about eligible for the Hall of Fame,
not managing a team again.

: 
: >: He put himself in a position where he could change the
: >: outcome of a game to benefit him financially, if you don't like cheating
: >: then call it fraud, but either way he did something that was very
: unethical.
: >:
: >:
: >
: >If a NASCAR driver cheats, he's usually fined and the points he earned
: >taken away.  He's not banned for life.  I doubt that a horse owner would
: >be banned from racing for life for doping a horse in the Kentucky Derby.
: >Even if Pete did gamble on baseball, this is like life imprisonment for
: >pot possession.
: 
: Absolutely irrelevant. He is not in NASCAR, horse racing etc, and this is
: not a court of law. If someone doesn't like the way a company is run, you
: don't join it he had a choice.

But baseball is a monopoly.  You can't go across the street and patronize
a competitor.

: 
: >How about making the punishment fit the crime?  Surely a
: >10 or 20 year suspension is enough!
: 
: Oh, so you're saying he is guilty now? Whether or not you think the
: punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, that's the punishment that was
: handed down. This isn't the free world where you can appeal etc, this is a
: business.

No, it's a legally-granted monopoly.  And baseball can't write its own
rules -- free agency, for example, when lifetime contract was overturned. 
Players can strike, for another example. 

Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
: 
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7va6mc$t56$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
: >Andrew (andrew@3.1415926.org) wrote:
: >: Lloyd R. Parker (lparker@emory.edu) wrote:
: >: : Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >: : :
: >: : : Eric Mesimer wrote in message <7v7v5h$cqh@catapult.gatech.edu>...
: >: : : >In atl.general JAS Carter <jsgoddess@geocities.com> wrote:
: >: : : >
: >: : : >: Pete Rose cheated.  He got caught.
: >: : : >
: >: : : >How did Pete Rose cheat in relation to baseball?  By gambling on it?
: >: : : >That's not cheating.  Cheating would be using a corked bat, or
: sandpaper
: >: : : >in a pitchers glove.
: >: : :
: >: : : Rose's actions, unlike Cobb or Mantle, placed him in a position that
: his
: >: : : outside actions would make it beneficial for him to effect the
: outcome of a
: >: : : game. That is the same as cheating.
: >: : :
: >:
: >: : No, that's not.  Not if he didn't actually DO anything.  Being in a
: >: : position to cheat is not the same as cheating.  You're in a position to
: >: : cheat on your taxes every year, but that's not the same as cheating.
: >:
: >: He bet on the outcome of over 50 Reds games,
: >
: >Allegedly.  Do you normally decide a case when all you've heard is the
: >prosecutor's side?
: 
: he was found guilty. In the MLB that is the law, you're opinion doesn't mean
: anything.,
: 
: 

MLB's "opinion" on free agency, or players not striking, wasn't the law.

dkeisen@best.com wrote:
: In article <7va6r7$t3$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>,
: Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
: >
: >A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
: >system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?
: 
: Certainly some colleges do in fact toss the student out of
: school. Try cheating on an exam at one of the military 
: academies or any college at all that has an Honor Code.

Not what I said.  Do we ban this student from THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM for
life?

JAS Carter (jsgoddess@geocities.com) wrote:
: On 28 Oct 1999 15:06:15 -0400, in rec.sport.baseball lparker@emory.edu
: (Lloyd R. Parker) said meaningfully:
: 
: >: >: >Rose's character isn't the issue.  It's what he did on the field.  
: >: >: 
: >: >: And what he did likely affected the outcome of the game, illicitly.
: >: >
: >: >Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
: >: 
: >: You may be a representative of a criminal court.
: >: 
: >: I'm only representing the court of common opinion.
: >: 
: >: I don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt."  I merely need the
: >: preponderance of the evidence.
: >
: >Then whatever happened to "let the punishment fit the crime?"  Is a life
: >sentence appropriate for this?  Especially when it's not been proven?
: 
: It's baseball's crime.  They get to say, "We don't like you or your
: ways.  Go away."
: 
: >A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
: >system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?
: 
: If you cheat at Harvard, you bet your ass Harvard won't let you back
: in.
: 
: MLB never said that Rose couldn't play sandlot baseball.
: 
: They never said he couldn't move to Japan and manage there.
: 
: They just said he's not welcome in MLB, and MLB-related things.
: 
: You want him to get kicked out of Harvard, and still get a diploma.
: It doesn't quite work that way.

If no US college would let this student in, guess what?  Anti-trust law
violation.  Lawsuit.  Baseball has a legal exemption from anti-trust, but
it doesn't mean they shouldn't play by the rules everybody else plays by.

Lev Polinsky (polinsky@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: JAS Carter <jsgoddess@geocities.com> wrote:
: : If you cheat at Harvard, you bet your ass Harvard won't let you back
: : in.
: 
: ...unless your name is Ted Kennedy.
: 
: : You want him to get kicked out of Harvard, and still get a diploma.
: : It doesn't quite work that way.
: 
: ...unless your name is Ted Kennedy.
: 
: Which brings up another important point.  Anyone -- anyone else in this
: situation, nobody would be talking about reinstatements or anything like
: that.  The fact that PR is perceived as an inner-circle HOFer is wny
: people are willing to give him any slack at all.  If Greg Riddoch did the
: same thing, he'd be teaching history again.
: -- 
: --Lev  http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~polinsky  polinsky@fas.harvard.edu
: "A man's mind is dirtier than a woman's, because a woman changes her
:  mind more often" - off www.anekdot.ru, as is: "Future encyclopaedia 
:  entry:  Yeltsin, Boris (1931-1998) - President of Russia, 1991-2000."

And of course, if Pete had used cocaine, a felony in some places, he'd get
a second and a third chance, right?  Felons are OK in the game, OK as role
models, right?

JAS Carter (jsgoddess@geocities.com) wrote:
: On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:22:01 -0500, in rec.sport.baseball "manfred"
: <manfred@flashmail.com> said meaningfully:
: 
: >> >If drug use affects the player, it necessarily affects the contest.  If
: >the
: >> >player is key to his team's performance on the field and theat player's
: >> >ability is impaired or enhanced due to drug use, then the contest is
: >> >certainly affected.  If baseball sees fit to keep Pete Rose banished from
: >> >the game and out of the Hall of Fame, then baseball should banish the
: >drug
: >> >users and dealers, and abusers, and lawbreakers as well if only for the
: >sake
: >> >of consistancy.
: >>
: >> That would also include Ron Gant, who was in a motorcycle accident
: >> which prevented him from playing, therefore affecting the outcome of a
: >> game...
: >
: >Ron Gant wasn't, to my knowledge, intentionally involved in an illegal
: >activity or an activity disallowed by baseball when he had his wreck.
: >Riding isn't illegal.
: 
: No it isn't.  But you seem to be saying that affecting the game at
: *all* is objectionable.  That personal choices having an impact is
: objectionable.  That they are in any way equivalent to *cheating* at
: the game itself (whether you call it cheating, fraud, or doing the
: hokey-pokey is irrelevant).
: 
: Gambling is not akin to drug use.  Drug use, in its physical effects,
: is more akin to overeating, or to drinking, or to motorcycle riding.
: They affect a person's health, and therefore may affect his play.
: 
: I'm talking about someone making decisions to affect the game.
: Gambling involves people making decisions to affect the game.

How about taking performance enhancing drugs -- steroids?  That is a
decision that affects the game.  If the drug Mark M. took had been banned
by baseball last year, like it was by every other sport, should he have
been banned for life?

On 29 Oct 1999 16:15:06 -0400, in rec.sport.baseball lparker@emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) said meaningfully:

>: >A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
>: >system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?
>: 
>: Certainly some colleges do in fact toss the student out of
>: school. Try cheating on an exam at one of the military 
>: academies or any college at all that has an Honor Code.
>
>Not what I said.  Do we ban this student from THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM for
>life?

Pete Rose has not been banned from baseball.  He can play in the
sandlots.  He can go to Japan.

He's been banned from MLB.  That's like getting kicked out of Harvard.

If he were never allowed to touch a baseball bat again, *that* would
be like getting kicked out of the educational system.

You need to bone up on your analogies.






Julie Carter
--
jsgoddess@jsgoddess.ourfamily.com

http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
ICQ:  1265510

On 29 Oct 1999 16:24:27 -0400, in rec.sport.baseball lparker@emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) said meaningfully:

>: >A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
>: >system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?
>: 
>: If you cheat at Harvard, you bet your ass Harvard won't let you back
>: in.
>: 
>: MLB never said that Rose couldn't play sandlot baseball.
>: 
>: They never said he couldn't move to Japan and manage there.
>: 
>: They just said he's not welcome in MLB, and MLB-related things.
>: 
>: You want him to get kicked out of Harvard, and still get a diploma.
>: It doesn't quite work that way.
>
>If no US college would let this student in, guess what?  Anti-trust law
>violation.  Lawsuit.  Baseball has a legal exemption from anti-trust, but
>it doesn't mean they shouldn't play by the rules everybody else plays by.

There would be no anti-trust law violation.  Schools request
transcripts of previous education.  Suspension for violating the rules
would be part and parcel of that.

Schools are allowed to choose whom they wish to educate.  Private
schools, that is.  The rules that govern public schools are too
convoluted for me to broach.

Contrary to your evident opinion, MLB does not equal baseball.  It is
simply the highest form of baseball we have in this country.

Pete Rose would not be arrested for playing baseball in a sandlot.
Nothing prevents him from creating his own league, even.

He is simply barred from participation in an organization.

As if he were kicked out of the Moose lodge because he cheated on a
raffle.






Julie Carter
--
jsgoddess@jsgoddess.ourfamily.com

http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
ICQ:  1265510

In article <7vcv8a$7br$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
>dkeisen@best.com wrote:
>: In article <7va6r7$t3$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>,
>: Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
>: >
>: >A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
>: >system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?
>: 
>: Certainly some colleges do in fact toss the student out of
>: school. Try cheating on an exam at one of the military 
>: academies or any college at all that has an Honor Code.
>
>Not what I said.  Do we ban this student from THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM for
>life?

"We" don't ban anyone from anything. "We" didn't ban Rose
from baseball.

A college can ban the student from going to that college. MLB
can ban Rose from playing in MLB. And it did. 


--
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (408) 752-1400
dkeisen@netcom.com                       FAX:                 (408) 752-2707
   In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct.
      ---  Ernie Hai, coordinator Singapore Gov't Internet Project.

In article <7vcvub$9no$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
>
>And of course, if Pete had used cocaine, a felony in some places, he'd get
>a second and a third chance, right?  Felons are OK in the game, OK as role
>models, right?

These people are athletes, not role models. One's behavior
off the field should not cause one to be banned from the
sport.


--
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (408) 752-1400
dkeisen@netcom.com                       FAX:                 (408) 752-2707
   In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct.
      ---  Ernie Hai, coordinator Singapore Gov't Internet Project.

JAS Carter (jsgoddess@geocities.com) wrote:
: On 29 Oct 1999 16:24:27 -0400, in rec.sport.baseball lparker@emory.edu
: (Lloyd R. Parker) said meaningfully:
: 
: >: >A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
: >: >system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?
: >: 
: >: If you cheat at Harvard, you bet your ass Harvard won't let you back
: >: in.
: >: 
: >: MLB never said that Rose couldn't play sandlot baseball.
: >: 
: >: They never said he couldn't move to Japan and manage there.
: >: 
: >: They just said he's not welcome in MLB, and MLB-related things.
: >: 
: >: You want him to get kicked out of Harvard, and still get a diploma.
: >: It doesn't quite work that way.
: >
: >If no US college would let this student in, guess what?  Anti-trust law
: >violation.  Lawsuit.  Baseball has a legal exemption from anti-trust, but
: >it doesn't mean they shouldn't play by the rules everybody else plays by.
: 
: There would be no anti-trust law violation.  Schools request
: transcripts of previous education.  Suspension for violating the rules
: would be part and parcel of that.
: 
: Schools are allowed to choose whom they wish to educate.  Private
: schools, that is.  The rules that govern public schools are too
: convoluted for me to broach.

But conspiring among themselves IS an anti-trust law violation.

: 
: Contrary to your evident opinion, MLB does not equal baseball.  It is
: simply the highest form of baseball we have in this country.
: 
: Pete Rose would not be arrested for playing baseball in a sandlot.
: Nothing prevents him from creating his own league, even.
: 
: He is simply barred from participation in an organization.
: 
: As if he were kicked out of the Moose lodge because he cheated on a
: raffle.

No, it's as if a person who wrote a computer program with a bug in it were
to be banned from ever working in the computer industry.  You're talking
about the ONLY professional baseball organization in this country.  Courts
have ruled, for example, that an organization cannot prohibit someone from
making a livelihood.  That's why football and basketball, which do not
have the antitrust exemption baseball has, don't ban players.  That's why
baseball can't get together and decide they're not going to sign free
agents, or not going to pay them over a certain amount -- even their
antitrust exemption doesn't cover that, and they were hit with a big
judgment for doing just that a few years ago.

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: Julie Carter
: --
: jsgoddess@jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
: 
: http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
: ICQ:  1265510
: 

In article <7vd01h$a1r$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
>
>How about taking performance enhancing drugs -- steroids?  That is a
>decision that affects the game.  If the drug Mark M. took had been banned
>by baseball last year, like it was by every other sport, should he have
>been banned for life?


I don't think banned for life, but it's a serious offense. Year's
suspension seems reasonable to me.

Note that the reason that Andro is banned in other sports is not
because it is performance-enhancing, but because it makes it 
impossible to test for other drugs that in fact are.


--
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (408) 752-1400
dkeisen@netcom.com                       FAX:                 (408) 752-2707
   In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct.
      ---  Ernie Hai, coordinator Singapore Gov't Internet Project.

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7vcvbe$7ls$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
>Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
>:
>: manfred wrote in message <7va68b$3qt$1@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>: >
>: >JAS Carter <jsgoddess@geocities.com> wrote in message
>: >news:383497de.1922002613@news.supernews.com...
>: >> On 28 Oct 1999 11:09:12 -0400, in rec.sport.baseball lparker@emory.edu
>: >> (Lloyd R. Parker) said meaningfully:
>: > <snip>
>: >
>: >> >Players who use drugs also break the rules of the game.  None of them
>: got
>: >> >a lifetime ban.
>: >>
>: >> Drug use may affect the player.  It does not change the nature of the
>: >> contest.
>: >
>: >If drug use affects the player, it necessarily affects the contest.
>:
>: Don't be such an idiot. There is a financial gain to be made or lost due
to
>: his betting, being in a position to affect the outcome of the game is
going
>: to change that, being addicted to something is not going to have the same
>: outcome. Do you understand the term "insider trading"? It's the same
thing
>: as that, you are committing fraud by placing a bet on a game, then being
in
>: a position to fix the game, that's why fixing sporting events is illegal.
>:
>:
>
>So is cheating on your taxes, which can affect others.  So is speeding,
>which can affect others.  So is cheating customers, etc., etc.  We don't
>impose a life sentence for any of these.

Irrelevant comparison. MLB organisation, MLB rules. Not IRS or criminal
rules and laws.

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7vcvi6$86g$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
>Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
>:
>: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7va6k7$sil$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
>:
>: >How about "allegedly"?
>:
>:
>: No, he was found guilty and banned from the sport. Half the murderers in
>: this world are going to claim they are innocent.
>
>No, he was not found guilty.  A lawyer investigated.  The lawyer presented
>his evidence -- his side of the case -- to the commissioner.  How is that
>a "found guilty"?  Where was the trial?  Where was the defense?


This isn't a court of law, it's MLB

>: >: gambled on a sport that he was involved in. How is that not
>: >: considered cheating?
>: >
>: >1. You haven't proved he gambled on baseball.
>:
>: "I" don't have to. It has already been proven by the MLB
>
>No it hasn't, any more than an indictment "proves" a defendant is guilty.


Apparently MLB doesn't agree with you on this, so give it up. Their game,
their rules. You don't like it? Tough.


>: >2. You haven't proved he gambled on the Reds.
>:
>:
>: So? The MLB says you're not allowed to do it, he joined the MLB and broke
>: their rules, he shouldn't have joined if he didn't like the rules.
>
>And does MLB say a life sentence is the penalty?


yes you idiot. That's what he got

>: >3. You haven't proved this affected the outcome of any game.
>:
>:
>: He placed himself in a position that he could fix a game, that's all
that's
>: needed. You don't get a 2nd chance on something like that.
>
>What second chance?  We're talking about eligible for the Hall of Fame,
>not managing a team again.


Wake up. This is MLB

>: >: He put himself in a position where he could change the
>: >: outcome of a game to benefit him financially, if you don't like
cheating
>: >: then call it fraud, but either way he did something that was very
>: unethical.
>: >:
>: >:
>: >
>: >If a NASCAR driver cheats, he's usually fined and the points he earned
>: >taken away.  He's not banned for life.  I doubt that a horse owner would
>: >be banned from racing for life for doping a horse in the Kentucky Derby.
>: >Even if Pete did gamble on baseball, this is like life imprisonment for
>: >pot possession.
>:
>: Absolutely irrelevant. He is not in NASCAR, horse racing etc, and this is
>: not a court of law. If someone doesn't like the way a company is run, you
>: don't join it he had a choice.
>
>But baseball is a monopoly.  You can't go across the street and patronize
>a competitor.


there are plenty of other baseball teams he could join

>: >How about making the punishment fit the crime?  Surely a
>: >10 or 20 year suspension is enough!
>:
>: Oh, so you're saying he is guilty now? Whether or not you think the
>: punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, that's the punishment that was
>: handed down. This isn't the free world where you can appeal etc, this is
a
>: business.
>
>No, it's a legally-granted monopoly.  And baseball can't write its own
>rules -- free agency, for example, when lifetime contract was overturned.
>Players can strike, for another example.


Apparently they agree with MLB on this then, cause they haven't striked to
try to get him reinstated. Either they agree, or they don't care, same
thing.

Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7vcvk1$8lq$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
>Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
>:
>: Lloyd R. Parker wrote in message <7va6mc$t56$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>...
>: >Andrew (andrew@3.1415926.org) wrote:
>: >: Lloyd R. Parker (lparker@emory.edu) wrote:
>: >: : Stuart (1@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: >: : :
>: >: : : Eric Mesimer wrote in message <7v7v5h$cqh@catapult.gatech.edu>...
>: >: : : >In atl.general JAS Carter <jsgoddess@geocities.com> wrote:
>: >: : : >
>: >: : : >: Pete Rose cheated.  He got caught.
>: >: : : >
>: >: : : >How did Pete Rose cheat in relation to baseball?  By gambling on
it?
>: >: : : >That's not cheating.  Cheating would be using a corked bat, or
>: sandpaper
>: >: : : >in a pitchers glove.
>: >: : :
>: >: : : Rose's actions, unlike Cobb or Mantle, placed him in a position
that
>: his
>: >: : : outside actions would make it beneficial for him to effect the
>: outcome of a
>: >: : : game. That is the same as cheating.
>: >: : :
>: >:
>: >: : No, that's not.  Not if he didn't actually DO anything.  Being in a
>: >: : position to cheat is not the same as cheating.  You're in a position
to
>: >: : cheat on your taxes every year, but that's not the same as cheating.
>: >:
>: >: He bet on the outcome of over 50 Reds games,
>: >
>: >Allegedly.  Do you normally decide a case when all you've heard is the
>: >prosecutor's side?
>:
>: he was found guilty. In the MLB that is the law, you're opinion doesn't
mean
>: anything.,
>:
>:
>
>MLB's "opinion" on free agency, or players not striking, wasn't the law.

That's a separate issue. It's Rose we're talking about. MLB ruled on him and
in their eyes he is guilty and they passed sentence. You opinion on this
still doesn't mean anything.

"Stuart" <1@mindspring.com> shared with usenet this thought:


>Apparently MLB doesn't agree with you on this, so give it up. Their game,
>their rules. You don't like it? Tough.

	Makes sense.  But look what happened to the Boy Scouts...

--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
--The Jam

On 29 Oct 1999 16:15:06 -0400, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
wrote:

>dkeisen@best.com wrote:
>: In article <7va6r7$t3$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>,
>: Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
>: >
>: >A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
>: >system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?
>: 
>: Certainly some colleges do in fact toss the student out of
>: school. Try cheating on an exam at one of the military 
>: academies or any college at all that has an Honor Code.
>
>Not what I said.  Do we ban this student from THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM for
>life?

Not a valid analogy.  Pete Rose has every right to play baseball in
any league not affiliated with Major League Baseball.


Kyle, he who means well
The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:

>And of course, if Pete had used cocaine, a felony in some places, he'd get
>a second and a third chance, right?  Felons are OK in the game, OK as role
>models, right?

Supporters of Rose really shouldn't be complaining about felons getting a
second chance in baseball.  Remember that Rose was sent up for selling
drugs and cheating on his taxes- and baseball isn't trying to keep him out
for doing those things.  If they start keeping out felons, Rose is
certainly gone. 

--
Raj                                (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
Master of Meaningless Trivia       (626) 585-0144
                                   http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~raj/

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:

> No, it's as if a person who wrote a computer program with a bug in it were
> to be banned from ever working in the computer industry.  You're talking
> about the ONLY professional baseball organization in this country.  Courts
> have ruled, for example, that an organization cannot prohibit someone from
> making a livelihood.

How about lawyers getting disbarred, and doctors losing their medical
licenses?

> That's why football and basketball, which do not have the antitrust
> exemption baseball has, don't ban players.

In both football and basketball, the rules are agreed between the union
and the league, and these negotations are exempt from anti-trust laws.
This is why the drafts in these sports are legal.  If the union has
agreed to a contract which bans a player from the league for fixing
games, or for using drugs too many times, that is legal.

> That's why
> baseball can't get together and decide they're not going to sign free
> agents, or not going to pay them over a certain amount -- even their
> antitrust exemption doesn't cover that, and they were hit with a big
> judgment for doing just that a few years ago.

The only reason this is illegal is that there is a clause in the
collective bargaining agreement which makes it illegal.  

Baseball *did* use its antitrust exemption to do this before there was a
union; there was a long-established rule that no player would be paid
over $100,000.  In addition, players who jumped contracts to play in the
Mexican League were barred from the game.

-- 
David Grabiner, grabiner@wcnet.org (note new Email)
http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine (note spelling)
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Torus Coffee and Donuts, Klein Glassworks, Projective Airlines, erc.

In <7vcvub$9no$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>, 
Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> claimed:
>Lev Polinsky (polinsky@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: JAS Carter <jsgoddess@geocities.com> wrote:

>: : If you cheat at Harvard, you bet your ass Harvard won't let you back
>: : in.
 
>: ...unless your name is Ted Kennedy.
 
>: : You want him to get kicked out of Harvard, and still get a diploma.
>: : It doesn't quite work that way.
 
>: ...unless your name is Ted Kennedy.
 
>: Which brings up another important point.  Anyone -- anyone else in this
>: situation, nobody would be talking about reinstatements or anything like
>: that.  The fact that PR is perceived as an inner-circle HOFer is wny
>: people are willing to give him any slack at all.  If Greg Riddoch did the
>: same thing, he'd be teaching history again.

>And of course, if Pete had used cocaine, a felony in some places, he'd get
>a second and a third chance, right?  

He might, he might not.  It would depend on whether any team wanted him
that badly.  

>Felons are OK in the game, 

Sure.  But if your argument is that felons are _not_ okay, then Rose is
out anyway, because he's a felon.

>OK as role models, right?

No.  
-- 
David M. Nieporent                    "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry.  I
nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu          watched Matlock in a bar last night.
3L - St. John's School of Law          The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society  got the gist of it."  -- L. Hutz

In <7va6r7$t3$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>, 
Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> claimed:
>JAS Carter (jsgoddess@geocities.com) wrote:
>: (Lloyd R. Parker) said meaningfully:
 
>: >: >Rose's character isn't the issue.  It's what he did on the field.  

>: >: And what he did likely affected the outcome of the game, illicitly.

>: >Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

>: You may be a representative of a criminal court.
>: I'm only representing the court of common opinion.
>: I don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt."  I merely need the
>: preponderance of the evidence.

>Then whatever happened to "let the punishment fit the crime?"  Is a life
>sentence appropriate for this?  

Life sentence?  He's banned from MLB, not in Attica.

Pete Rose thought so; he signed a settlement with MLB agreeing to this.

>Especially when it's not been proven?

Red herring.  It wasn't proven because Rose chose to settle the case
instead.

>A student who cheats in school changes the nature of the educational
>system.  Do we ban this student from the educational system for life?

"We" don't do anything, but you'll find few if any colleges willing to
admit someone who's been expelled for cheating.  
-- 
David M. Nieporent                    "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry.  I
nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu          watched Matlock in a bar last night.
3L - St. John's School of Law          The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society  got the gist of it."  -- L. Hutz

David J. Grabiner (grabiner@wcnet.org) wrote:

: In both football and basketball, the rules are agreed between the union
: and the league, and these negotations are exempt from anti-trust laws.
: This is why the drafts in these sports are legal.  If the union has
: agreed to a contract which bans a player from the league for fixing
: games, or for using drugs too many times, that is legal.
: 
: > That's why
: > baseball can't get together and decide they're not going to sign free
: > agents, or not going to pay them over a certain amount -- even their
: > antitrust exemption doesn't cover that, and they were hit with a big
: > judgment for doing just that a few years ago.
: 
: The only reason this is illegal is that there is a clause in the
: collective bargaining agreement which makes it illegal.  
: 
: Baseball *did* use its antitrust exemption to do this before there was a
: union; there was a long-established rule that no player would be paid
: over $100,000.  In addition, players who jumped contracts to play in the
: Mexican League were barred from the game.

Guess you don't remember Curt Flood.

"Lloyd R. Parker" wrote:

> David J. Grabiner (grabiner@wcnet.org) wrote:
>
> : Baseball *did* use its antitrust exemption to do this before there was a
> : union; there was a long-established rule that no player would be paid
> : over $100,000.  In addition, players who jumped contracts to play in the
> : Mexican League were barred from the game.
>
> Guess you don't remember Curt Flood.

Brush up on your history.  Curt Flood lost.  Blackmun wrote the opinion for
the U.S. Supreme Court.  You can find it by looking for Flood v. Kuhn.

Aaron J. Pound, Esquire

In <7vkmt9$3eu$1@jet.cc.emory.edu>, 
Lloyd R. Parker <lparker@emory.edu> claimed:
>David J. Grabiner (grabiner@wcnet.org) wrote:

>: In both football and basketball, the rules are agreed between the union
>: and the league, and these negotations are exempt from anti-trust laws.
>: This is why the drafts in these sports are legal.  If the union has
>: agreed to a contract which bans a player from the league for fixing
>: games, or for using drugs too many times, that is legal.
 
>: > That's why
>: > baseball can't get together and decide they're not going to sign free
>: > agents, or not going to pay them over a certain amount -- even their
>: > antitrust exemption doesn't cover that, and they were hit with a big
>: > judgment for doing just that a few years ago.
 
>: The only reason this is illegal is that there is a clause in the
>: collective bargaining agreement which makes it illegal.  
>: Baseball *did* use its antitrust exemption to do this before there was a
>: union; there was a long-established rule that no player would be paid
>: over $100,000.  In addition, players who jumped contracts to play in the
>: Mexican League were barred from the game.

>Guess you don't remember Curt Flood.

I'm quite sure David does.  Flood *lost.*

-- 
David M. Nieporent                    "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry.  I
nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu          watched Matlock in a bar last night.
3L - St. John's School of Law          The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society  got the gist of it."  -- L. Hutz

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:

> David J. Grabiner (grabiner@wcnet.org) wrote:

[concering team agreements to limit salaries]

> : Baseball *did* use its antitrust exemption to do this before there was a
> : union; there was a long-established rule that no player would be paid
> : over $100,000.  In addition, players who jumped contracts to play in the
> : Mexican League were barred from the game.
> 
> Guess you don't remember Curt Flood.

I'm not sure why you think Flood is relevant here; he lost his case, and
the case was about the ability to refuse a trade.  

The $100,000 limit was an unwritten rule, and was eventually abolished
as salaries rose.  Flood was offered $125,000, and some of the other top
players at the time were also making this much.

Also, I said "before there was a union"; the union wasn't as powerful
when Flood filed his case, but it did exist.  

-- 
David Grabiner, grabiner@wcnet.org (note new Email)
http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine (note spelling)
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Torus Coffee and Donuts, Klein Glassworks, Projective Airlines, erc.