Should?
- Thread starter WriterDom
- Start date
BrainyBeauty
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2000
- Posts
- 653
Madame Pandora:
What a pleasure it is to debate with someone who actually understands that to engage in an argument does not mean it has to be adversarial! (Would that everyone understood that!)
I see that you and many others on this thread have suggested that he has suffered enough and his 'crime' wasn't so bad. I must take exception to that. Again, what is the point of having rules and laws if people can break them willy nilly when they want to? Or they can be disregarded because 'the people have spoken'. Granted, this isn't on the same level as murder or rape, yet I am fairly confident that people would not be as willing to dispense with justice/rules/laws in those instances. (Okay, I guess OJ is a bad example right about now!)
But you say he "just made a stupid mistake". I say it was willful. Unless he is blind, deaf and dumb, which I assure you he is not, it would be virtually impossible to claim ignorance of the law. Besides seeing this rule posted in the locker room, clubhouse and dugout, they are also informed of this rule at the time of their hiring and every time their contract is renewed. Do you see how important this matter is? And how seriously they take it?
You mention that it feels like politics and stubborn egos. However, this is nothing new. This cardinal rule has been in effect for over 100 years! The most famous case prior to this one was, of course, the Chicago Eight. The White Sox scandal where Shoeless Joe Jackson and others were accused of being in cahoots with organized crime to throw the World Series in 1919. They were all banned from baseball for life. Those men have not been reinstated. So, the argument that it involves politics or inflated egos- while that may very well be true- does not diminish the fact that there is precedent.
They are not picking on Pete. He was not fearful of anything when he signed the agreement. Mad maybe. They had him by the short hairs and he knew it. He also knew what he was giving up. He claims now that he thought the door was held open for future reinstatement.
The MLB powers-that-be are exercising their right to govern their business as they see fit. They established a set of rules and are well within their rights to enforce them. His legal troubles associated with this have been paid for. I strongly maintain that he knew the rules going in. He wasn't blindsided.
To answer your question- several people suggested a 'compromise'- whereby Pete would apologize, admit he gambled on baseball, and ask for forgiveness. In return, MLB would reinstate him. BOTH sides declined that suggestion!
I am sorry to repeat myself but I think you may have missed it in my original post. (a) Pete Rose is ALREADY in the Hall of Fame! But more importantly, (b) he violated the rules; he also broke the law. So, to me that is the "truth" as you mentioned. It IS a matter of ethics. Goodness, doesn't anyone else see that?
What is it that you folks don't understand about this concept? I am not trying to be flip. (or adversarial! lol) I am seriously interested in your response.
Gosh I hope I didn't double post. Just as I submitted this post, the electricity went out! Been sitting here waiting for it to come back on so I can open my garage door and leave for work. Heck, as long as I am late now anyway, thought I'd come back here and post this! LOL
What a pleasure it is to debate with someone who actually understands that to engage in an argument does not mean it has to be adversarial! (Would that everyone understood that!)
I see that you and many others on this thread have suggested that he has suffered enough and his 'crime' wasn't so bad. I must take exception to that. Again, what is the point of having rules and laws if people can break them willy nilly when they want to? Or they can be disregarded because 'the people have spoken'. Granted, this isn't on the same level as murder or rape, yet I am fairly confident that people would not be as willing to dispense with justice/rules/laws in those instances. (Okay, I guess OJ is a bad example right about now!)
But you say he "just made a stupid mistake". I say it was willful. Unless he is blind, deaf and dumb, which I assure you he is not, it would be virtually impossible to claim ignorance of the law. Besides seeing this rule posted in the locker room, clubhouse and dugout, they are also informed of this rule at the time of their hiring and every time their contract is renewed. Do you see how important this matter is? And how seriously they take it?
You mention that it feels like politics and stubborn egos. However, this is nothing new. This cardinal rule has been in effect for over 100 years! The most famous case prior to this one was, of course, the Chicago Eight. The White Sox scandal where Shoeless Joe Jackson and others were accused of being in cahoots with organized crime to throw the World Series in 1919. They were all banned from baseball for life. Those men have not been reinstated. So, the argument that it involves politics or inflated egos- while that may very well be true- does not diminish the fact that there is precedent.
They are not picking on Pete. He was not fearful of anything when he signed the agreement. Mad maybe. They had him by the short hairs and he knew it. He also knew what he was giving up. He claims now that he thought the door was held open for future reinstatement.
The MLB powers-that-be are exercising their right to govern their business as they see fit. They established a set of rules and are well within their rights to enforce them. His legal troubles associated with this have been paid for. I strongly maintain that he knew the rules going in. He wasn't blindsided.
To answer your question- several people suggested a 'compromise'- whereby Pete would apologize, admit he gambled on baseball, and ask for forgiveness. In return, MLB would reinstate him. BOTH sides declined that suggestion!
I am sorry to repeat myself but I think you may have missed it in my original post. (a) Pete Rose is ALREADY in the Hall of Fame! But more importantly, (b) he violated the rules; he also broke the law. So, to me that is the "truth" as you mentioned. It IS a matter of ethics. Goodness, doesn't anyone else see that?
What is it that you folks don't understand about this concept? I am not trying to be flip. (or adversarial! lol) I am seriously interested in your response.
Gosh I hope I didn't double post. Just as I submitted this post, the electricity went out! Been sitting here waiting for it to come back on so I can open my garage door and leave for work. Heck, as long as I am late now anyway, thought I'd come back here and post this! LOL
Lil-Brandi
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2000
- Posts
- 804
YES!!!
Even though I don't watch baseball..I know who he is and what he has done on and off the field. I think he should be remembered and honored for what he did IN the game and FOR the game and his off-field antics should be kept as a seperate issue all together!
Even though I don't watch baseball..I know who he is and what he has done on and off the field. I think he should be remembered and honored for what he did IN the game and FOR the game and his off-field antics should be kept as a seperate issue all together!
Gaucho
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2000
- Posts
- 2,631
Just call me a waffler...
BB and MP, thank you both for eloquent and thought provoking posts. Unfortunately, I'm still on the fence on this one (thankfully, it's not a picket fence. Ouch!).
Like many of us, I'm of two minds when it comes to Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame. A part of me would love to see him formally inducted. Without question, his talent and perseverance qualify him for entrance into the club. However, his off the field antics (and, as much as anything, his unrepentent attitude about them) tilt the scale in the other direction.
While I do feel it's wrong to hold a player's personal beliefs and actions (Ty Cobb's racism, Mickey Mantle's alcoholism, etc) against him when it comes to voting time, I agree with BB that Rose's actions (gambling on his own sport while in a position to affect the outcome) are potentially far more damaging to the sport as a whole and rise well above the level of the "stupid mistake". The perception that an athlete might willingly alter even the winning score of a contest in order to make himself (or others) a few extra bucks on the side would be the kiss of death for that sport and every person connected with the sport knows it. Professional athletes know they can get away with murder (sometimes literally) in just about every respect except for that one.
Rose knew it. Now he's paying the price for it. All things considered, I can't really say I feel sorry for him.
Maybe the real answer to this is that Pete should go into politics, where there are no ethics and stupid mistakes abound. Then he'd only have to wait 5 years to get his law license back - er, get into the Hall of Fame.
BB and MP, thank you both for eloquent and thought provoking posts. Unfortunately, I'm still on the fence on this one (thankfully, it's not a picket fence. Ouch!).
Like many of us, I'm of two minds when it comes to Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame. A part of me would love to see him formally inducted. Without question, his talent and perseverance qualify him for entrance into the club. However, his off the field antics (and, as much as anything, his unrepentent attitude about them) tilt the scale in the other direction.
While I do feel it's wrong to hold a player's personal beliefs and actions (Ty Cobb's racism, Mickey Mantle's alcoholism, etc) against him when it comes to voting time, I agree with BB that Rose's actions (gambling on his own sport while in a position to affect the outcome) are potentially far more damaging to the sport as a whole and rise well above the level of the "stupid mistake". The perception that an athlete might willingly alter even the winning score of a contest in order to make himself (or others) a few extra bucks on the side would be the kiss of death for that sport and every person connected with the sport knows it. Professional athletes know they can get away with murder (sometimes literally) in just about every respect except for that one.
Rose knew it. Now he's paying the price for it. All things considered, I can't really say I feel sorry for him.
Maybe the real answer to this is that Pete should go into politics, where there are no ethics and stupid mistakes abound. Then he'd only have to wait 5 years to get his law license back - er, get into the Hall of Fame.
Madame Pandora
Deliciously Aware of Impending Sins
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Posts
- 1,627
What a pleasure it is to debate with someone who actually understands that to engage in an argument does not mean it has to be adversarial! (Would that everyone understood that!)
This feeling is 100% mutual ;-)
I see that you and many others on this thread have suggested that he has suffered enough and his 'crime' wasn't so bad. I must take exception to that. Again, what is the point of having rules and laws if people can break them willy nilly when they want to? Or they can be disregarded because 'the people have spoken'. Granted, this isn't on the same level as murder or rape, yet I am fairly confident that people would not be as willing to dispense with justice/rules/laws in those instances. (Okay, I guess OJ is a bad example right about now!)
It is for the very fact that it is NOT murder or rape that I feel we CAN bend the rules in this instance. But then, I am not someone who feels that law is written in stone. I understand the need for rules and laws, I just also see the need for exceptions to them. (Alan Dershewitz (sp?)says it more eloquently by proclaiming the law is not a rapier, but a cudgel. A blunt instrument that can does not pierce the truth, but hits as close to it as possible.
But you say he "just made a stupid mistake". I say it was willful. Unless he is blind, deaf and dumb, which I assure you he is not, it would be virtually impossible to claim ignorance of the law. Besides seeing this rule posted in the locker room, clubhouse and dugout, they are also informed of this rule at the time of their hiring and every time their contract is renewed. Do you see how important this matter is? And how seriously they take it?
This is a good point. The only way to explain my position to you is this. I know it is illegal to drive without my seatbelt on. I still do it. It is now illegal to drive in FL while speaking on a cell phone. I still do that too. I do not mean to say that he was just a goof and didn’t realize he was breaking the law. Yes, I agree, he knew well what he was doing. I also know that many good people break laws everyday of their lives. And, if seatbelts and cell phones do not seem very serious, I will add that I also have friends who indulge in :::cough cough::: shall we say controlled substances. I don’t think any of them would deserve to have their legacies erased because Nancy Regan told them to “Just Say No” and they shrugged her off. Again, I agree he broke the law, but it is just a law of money. I understand that it is to protect the integrity of the game, and I do understand why it is so serious an issue. I just think the point has been made.
For what it’s worth, I also think that gambling is, in some people, very much a disease as much as a physical addiction. I don’t know the man personally, but this is a factor in my reasoning. I don’t think Robert Downey Jr. should be forbidden to act ever again for doing drugs on a film site. Nor do I feel Pete should be barred from baseball functions for gambling. Just my feelings.
You mention that it feels like politics and stubborn egos. However, this is nothing new. This cardinal rule has been in effect for over 100 years! The most famous case prior to this one was, of course, the Chicago Eight. The White Sox scandal where Shoeless Joe Jackson and others were accused of being in cahoots with organized crime to throw the World Series in 1919. They were all banned from baseball for life. Those men have not been reinstated. So, the argument that it involves politics or inflated egos- while that may very well be true- does not diminish the fact that there is precedent.
This is also a good point. I feel those men should be reinstated too. But then again, I also thought Galileo should have been let out of purgaroty long before the Pope declared it.
They are not picking on Pete. He was not fearful of anything when he signed the agreement. Mad maybe. They had him by the short hairs and he knew it. He also knew what he was giving up. He claims now that he thought the door was held open for future reinstatement.
When you are facing even the possibility of jail time or enormous fines, there’s no such thing as not being afraid. Sure he’s got an ego the size of Montana, but he was scared. Of course he's not going to admit that.
The MLB powers-that-be are exercising their right to govern their business as they see fit. They established a set of rules and are well within their rights to enforce them. His legal troubles associated with this have been paid for. I strongly maintain that he knew the rules going in. He wasn't blindsided.
I do not dispute their right to govern their business as they see fit. The question was SHOULD he be allowed not MUST. Like I said, to me it would be a nice gesture on behalf of the fans who loved watching him play. Make the gesture. Ask him to admit his wrongdoing and make a few public service announcements against gambling. If his heart truly aches to be part of the MLB again, he will curb his ego. If he’s not willing to do that for the fans and the MLB, then it doesn’t mean that much to him. The MLB powers-that-be made a lot of money of him for a long time. To me, that’s worth an ounce or two of forgiveness.
To answer your question- several people suggested a 'compromise'- whereby Pete would apologize, admit he gambled on baseball, and ask for forgiveness. In return, MLB would reinstate him. BOTH sides declined that suggestion!
Then let the MLB make the gesture. If Pete turns it down, they never have to listen to public complaint again. I think if the MLB agreed to that, Pete’s staunch refusal might do a big turn around. It’s one thing to be asked a hypothetical question, it’s another thing to be offered something you want outright.
I am sorry to repeat myself but I think you may have missed it in my original post. (a) Pete Rose is ALREADY in the Hall of Fame! But more importantly, (b) he violated the rules; he also broke the law. So, to me that is the "truth" as you mentioned. It IS a matter of ethics. Goodness, doesn't anyone else see that?
What is it that you folks don't understand about this concept? I am not trying to be flip. (or adversarial! lol) I am seriously interested in your response.
Of course I see that. I just don’t see the ethics in question as a cut-and-dry issue. I don’t see these particular rules as more important than a gesture of forgiveness or a man’s contribution to an industry. Sorry. I just don’t.
Just MHO
MP
This feeling is 100% mutual ;-)
I see that you and many others on this thread have suggested that he has suffered enough and his 'crime' wasn't so bad. I must take exception to that. Again, what is the point of having rules and laws if people can break them willy nilly when they want to? Or they can be disregarded because 'the people have spoken'. Granted, this isn't on the same level as murder or rape, yet I am fairly confident that people would not be as willing to dispense with justice/rules/laws in those instances. (Okay, I guess OJ is a bad example right about now!)
It is for the very fact that it is NOT murder or rape that I feel we CAN bend the rules in this instance. But then, I am not someone who feels that law is written in stone. I understand the need for rules and laws, I just also see the need for exceptions to them. (Alan Dershewitz (sp?)says it more eloquently by proclaiming the law is not a rapier, but a cudgel. A blunt instrument that can does not pierce the truth, but hits as close to it as possible.
But you say he "just made a stupid mistake". I say it was willful. Unless he is blind, deaf and dumb, which I assure you he is not, it would be virtually impossible to claim ignorance of the law. Besides seeing this rule posted in the locker room, clubhouse and dugout, they are also informed of this rule at the time of their hiring and every time their contract is renewed. Do you see how important this matter is? And how seriously they take it?
This is a good point. The only way to explain my position to you is this. I know it is illegal to drive without my seatbelt on. I still do it. It is now illegal to drive in FL while speaking on a cell phone. I still do that too. I do not mean to say that he was just a goof and didn’t realize he was breaking the law. Yes, I agree, he knew well what he was doing. I also know that many good people break laws everyday of their lives. And, if seatbelts and cell phones do not seem very serious, I will add that I also have friends who indulge in :::cough cough::: shall we say controlled substances. I don’t think any of them would deserve to have their legacies erased because Nancy Regan told them to “Just Say No” and they shrugged her off. Again, I agree he broke the law, but it is just a law of money. I understand that it is to protect the integrity of the game, and I do understand why it is so serious an issue. I just think the point has been made.
For what it’s worth, I also think that gambling is, in some people, very much a disease as much as a physical addiction. I don’t know the man personally, but this is a factor in my reasoning. I don’t think Robert Downey Jr. should be forbidden to act ever again for doing drugs on a film site. Nor do I feel Pete should be barred from baseball functions for gambling. Just my feelings.
You mention that it feels like politics and stubborn egos. However, this is nothing new. This cardinal rule has been in effect for over 100 years! The most famous case prior to this one was, of course, the Chicago Eight. The White Sox scandal where Shoeless Joe Jackson and others were accused of being in cahoots with organized crime to throw the World Series in 1919. They were all banned from baseball for life. Those men have not been reinstated. So, the argument that it involves politics or inflated egos- while that may very well be true- does not diminish the fact that there is precedent.
This is also a good point. I feel those men should be reinstated too. But then again, I also thought Galileo should have been let out of purgaroty long before the Pope declared it.
They are not picking on Pete. He was not fearful of anything when he signed the agreement. Mad maybe. They had him by the short hairs and he knew it. He also knew what he was giving up. He claims now that he thought the door was held open for future reinstatement.
When you are facing even the possibility of jail time or enormous fines, there’s no such thing as not being afraid. Sure he’s got an ego the size of Montana, but he was scared. Of course he's not going to admit that.
The MLB powers-that-be are exercising their right to govern their business as they see fit. They established a set of rules and are well within their rights to enforce them. His legal troubles associated with this have been paid for. I strongly maintain that he knew the rules going in. He wasn't blindsided.
I do not dispute their right to govern their business as they see fit. The question was SHOULD he be allowed not MUST. Like I said, to me it would be a nice gesture on behalf of the fans who loved watching him play. Make the gesture. Ask him to admit his wrongdoing and make a few public service announcements against gambling. If his heart truly aches to be part of the MLB again, he will curb his ego. If he’s not willing to do that for the fans and the MLB, then it doesn’t mean that much to him. The MLB powers-that-be made a lot of money of him for a long time. To me, that’s worth an ounce or two of forgiveness.
To answer your question- several people suggested a 'compromise'- whereby Pete would apologize, admit he gambled on baseball, and ask for forgiveness. In return, MLB would reinstate him. BOTH sides declined that suggestion!
Then let the MLB make the gesture. If Pete turns it down, they never have to listen to public complaint again. I think if the MLB agreed to that, Pete’s staunch refusal might do a big turn around. It’s one thing to be asked a hypothetical question, it’s another thing to be offered something you want outright.
I am sorry to repeat myself but I think you may have missed it in my original post. (a) Pete Rose is ALREADY in the Hall of Fame! But more importantly, (b) he violated the rules; he also broke the law. So, to me that is the "truth" as you mentioned. It IS a matter of ethics. Goodness, doesn't anyone else see that?
What is it that you folks don't understand about this concept? I am not trying to be flip. (or adversarial! lol) I am seriously interested in your response.
Of course I see that. I just don’t see the ethics in question as a cut-and-dry issue. I don’t see these particular rules as more important than a gesture of forgiveness or a man’s contribution to an industry. Sorry. I just don’t.
Just MHO
MP
BrainyBeauty
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2000
- Posts
- 653
Rounding third and heading for home
It is for the very fact that it is NOT murder or rape that I feel we CAN bend the rules in this instance. But then, I am not someone who feels that law is written in stone.
Apparently you don't. Are you saying, then, that you believe a slap on the wrist is sufficient punishment for any offense?
I know it is illegal to drive without my seatbelt on. I still do it. It is now illegal to drive in FL while speaking on a cell phone. I still do that too.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not not run the risk of losing your license if you fail to wear your seat belt or talk on the phone while driving. You might get a warning or a ticket and have to pay a fine and increased insurance rates, but I don't believe that revocation of your driving privileges is the penalty for either of those offenses. However, DUI/DWI is and it is clearly mandated that a conviction of this crime will result in suspension or revocation of driving license privileges.
Again, I agree he broke the law, but it is just a law of money.
I totally disagree. This is absolutely the point where ethics comes in to play. Besides, robbing banks is also "just a law of money" as you put it. Are you advocating that we release prisoners who are convicted of that crime too???
I don’t think Robert Downey Jr. should be forbidden to act ever again for doing drugs on a film site. Nor do I feel Pete should be barred from baseball functions for gambling. Just my feelings.
Of course I am not privy to Mr. Downey's SAG union contract, but my guess is that there is no clause or requirement that he refrain from taking or abusing drugs. Even if there were such a clause, it probably does not REQUIRE his expulsion from the movie industry as the gambling rule states for baseball. Hell, three quarters of Hollywood would have to shut down if that were the case!
When you are facing even the possibility of jail time or enormous fines, there’s no such thing as not being afraid. Sure he’s got an ego the size of Montana, but he was scared. Of course he's not going to admit that.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. One had nothing to do with the other. Signing the baseball document was a separate and discrete process from any governmental action. I am sure he was afraid when he went to court and was found guilty of tax evasion and racketeering but we were talking about the legal paper that MLB asked him to sign.
I do not dispute their right to govern their business as they see fit. The question was SHOULD he be allowed not MUST. Like I said, to me it would be a nice gesture on behalf of the fans who loved watching him play. Make the gesture. Ask him to admit his wrongdoing and make a few public service announcements against gambling. If his heart truly aches to be part of the MLB again, he will curb his ego. If he’s not willing to do that for the fans and the MLB, then it doesn’t mean that much to him. The MLB powers-that-be made a lot of money of him for a long time. To me, that’s worth an ounce or two of forgiveness.
Then let the MLB make the gesture. If Pete turns it down, they never have to listen to public complaint again. I think if the MLB agreed to that, Pete’s staunch refusal might do a big turn around. It’s one thing to be asked a hypothetical question, it’s another thing to be offered something you want outright.
Sorry, MP, but MLB has asked him to do this. Several times. He has refused repeatedly. Of course, this has never been done face to face. Simply a PR nightmare war waged through the media. He has refused to admit culpability and shows no remorse whatsoever and they have refused to consider reinstatement. (Same goes for the eight men out fellas)
MLB has always taken a firm stand on this issue and has the courage of their convictions to demonstrate that there is a difference between right and wrong. This action serves only to reinforce that stance. As you pointed out in an earlier post, the object of a law and its corresponding punishment is to deter future offenders. Tell me how exactly, slapping his wrist and saying 'Boys will be boys' would in any way dissuade another athlete from committing the same crime?
Of course I see that. I just don’t see the ethics in question as a cut-and-dry issue. I don’t see these particular rules as more important than a gesture of forgiveness or a man’s contribution to an industry. Sorry. I just don’t.
I am sorry for beating a dead horse, but as I keep indicating they have not ignored his vast contributions. On the contrary, they have even gone so far as to request that he refrain from selling some of his personal memorabilia in order for them to add to their collection and for display at the Hall! (Kinda hypocritical isn't it?)
I see this mostly as right versus wrong. You, of course, don't see it as such a clearly defined black and white issue. I am not sure how to be any clearer in my arguments. And it serves no purpose to keep pointing out the flaws in yours.
I suppose it would be appropriate at this point for me to suggest, since we seem to be the only two people left who care about this subject, that we let this rest; to say that we can cling to our own beliefs and let the principal players involved worry about it from now on!
We should spend our time more constructively by shaking hands for a thoughtful exchange of ideas and proceed to a mud..err no..a chocolate wrestling match?
Thanks for the stimulating discussion, MP.
It is for the very fact that it is NOT murder or rape that I feel we CAN bend the rules in this instance. But then, I am not someone who feels that law is written in stone.
Apparently you don't. Are you saying, then, that you believe a slap on the wrist is sufficient punishment for any offense?
I know it is illegal to drive without my seatbelt on. I still do it. It is now illegal to drive in FL while speaking on a cell phone. I still do that too.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not not run the risk of losing your license if you fail to wear your seat belt or talk on the phone while driving. You might get a warning or a ticket and have to pay a fine and increased insurance rates, but I don't believe that revocation of your driving privileges is the penalty for either of those offenses. However, DUI/DWI is and it is clearly mandated that a conviction of this crime will result in suspension or revocation of driving license privileges.
Again, I agree he broke the law, but it is just a law of money.
I totally disagree. This is absolutely the point where ethics comes in to play. Besides, robbing banks is also "just a law of money" as you put it. Are you advocating that we release prisoners who are convicted of that crime too???
I don’t think Robert Downey Jr. should be forbidden to act ever again for doing drugs on a film site. Nor do I feel Pete should be barred from baseball functions for gambling. Just my feelings.
Of course I am not privy to Mr. Downey's SAG union contract, but my guess is that there is no clause or requirement that he refrain from taking or abusing drugs. Even if there were such a clause, it probably does not REQUIRE his expulsion from the movie industry as the gambling rule states for baseball. Hell, three quarters of Hollywood would have to shut down if that were the case!
When you are facing even the possibility of jail time or enormous fines, there’s no such thing as not being afraid. Sure he’s got an ego the size of Montana, but he was scared. Of course he's not going to admit that.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. One had nothing to do with the other. Signing the baseball document was a separate and discrete process from any governmental action. I am sure he was afraid when he went to court and was found guilty of tax evasion and racketeering but we were talking about the legal paper that MLB asked him to sign.
I do not dispute their right to govern their business as they see fit. The question was SHOULD he be allowed not MUST. Like I said, to me it would be a nice gesture on behalf of the fans who loved watching him play. Make the gesture. Ask him to admit his wrongdoing and make a few public service announcements against gambling. If his heart truly aches to be part of the MLB again, he will curb his ego. If he’s not willing to do that for the fans and the MLB, then it doesn’t mean that much to him. The MLB powers-that-be made a lot of money of him for a long time. To me, that’s worth an ounce or two of forgiveness.
Then let the MLB make the gesture. If Pete turns it down, they never have to listen to public complaint again. I think if the MLB agreed to that, Pete’s staunch refusal might do a big turn around. It’s one thing to be asked a hypothetical question, it’s another thing to be offered something you want outright.
Sorry, MP, but MLB has asked him to do this. Several times. He has refused repeatedly. Of course, this has never been done face to face. Simply a PR nightmare war waged through the media. He has refused to admit culpability and shows no remorse whatsoever and they have refused to consider reinstatement. (Same goes for the eight men out fellas)
MLB has always taken a firm stand on this issue and has the courage of their convictions to demonstrate that there is a difference between right and wrong. This action serves only to reinforce that stance. As you pointed out in an earlier post, the object of a law and its corresponding punishment is to deter future offenders. Tell me how exactly, slapping his wrist and saying 'Boys will be boys' would in any way dissuade another athlete from committing the same crime?
Of course I see that. I just don’t see the ethics in question as a cut-and-dry issue. I don’t see these particular rules as more important than a gesture of forgiveness or a man’s contribution to an industry. Sorry. I just don’t.
I am sorry for beating a dead horse, but as I keep indicating they have not ignored his vast contributions. On the contrary, they have even gone so far as to request that he refrain from selling some of his personal memorabilia in order for them to add to their collection and for display at the Hall! (Kinda hypocritical isn't it?)
I see this mostly as right versus wrong. You, of course, don't see it as such a clearly defined black and white issue. I am not sure how to be any clearer in my arguments. And it serves no purpose to keep pointing out the flaws in yours.
I suppose it would be appropriate at this point for me to suggest, since we seem to be the only two people left who care about this subject, that we let this rest; to say that we can cling to our own beliefs and let the principal players involved worry about it from now on!
We should spend our time more constructively by shaking hands for a thoughtful exchange of ideas and proceed to a mud..err no..a chocolate wrestling match?
Thanks for the stimulating discussion, MP.
