| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 13:20:10
Should a player's eligibility for the Hockey Hall Of Fame be determined by what they did off the ice? What if a player was up for a vote in the HHoF but then was found to be guilty of [INSERT TERRIBLE CRIME OF YOUR CHOICE HERE]? Should that determine their eligibility? What if a present member decided to go postal and killed 33 people. Should their membership be taken away?
I believe it shouldn't.
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 22:08:30
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So what you are saying is that anything that happens in a HOFer's life should effect his status in the Hall.
So, Paul Coffey gets home from a hard day at his Car Dealership and finds his wife in bed with another man. In a fit of rage, he tosses the guy through his front window and the guy dies from hitting his head on a sidewalk.
Are you saying he stays in the Hall or get's kicked out??
What does that have to do with his sport, they way he played it, and what he contributed to the game??
It's woman's tennis and this for me tonight.
I say he probably should stay (and sort of touched on that a bit in an earlier post). Would need to examine all the detaiils, but generally I would lean to keeping him in (not because what he did had nothing to do with hockey, but because it doesn't quite meet the "malicious/evil" line for me). I mean, there is a difference between that and the type of scenarios I am talking about. If he spends a few months planning a mass killing for some terrorist group and then goes out and does it, I say he should be out of the Hall. For me there are a few extreme situations, VERY extreme, where you throw everything else we're talking about out the window.
Other than that, it has to really and truly negatively affect the sport. I think Eagleson virtually stealing from hockey players, amongst other things, had a WAY more negative effect on his sport than Pete Rose betting on his own team had on his sport.
Back to so-and-so VIC vs. so-and-so OVA so-and-so Vic is kind of cute |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 21:43:53
So what you are saying is that anything that happens in a HOFer's life should effect his status in the Hall.
So, Paul Coffey gets home from a hard day at his Car Dealership and finds his wife in bed with another man. In a fit of rage, he tosses the guy through his front window and the guy dies from hitting his head on a sidewalk.
Are you saying he stays in the Hall or get's kicked out??
What does that have to do with his sport, they way he played it, and what he contributed to the game??
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 21:05:27
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
That is the difference. Rose's actions were while involved in baseball and directly related to baseball. His actions disgraced his team and the league through association. OJ, on the other hand, was completely removed from Football, and if you think he is a disgrace (like I do), it's hard to argue that he disgraced his sport.
Does that make sense??
I think whatever sense it makes lends support to Seal's original point because if you take what you are taking to the extreme, meaning the postal scenario, the guy who has gone the terrorist route scenario or whatever other unsavoury scenario you can imagine, if I understand your point correctly, that person still stays in the Hall regardless of the terrible thing he does years after he got in (because the unsavoury event had nothing to do with the player's sport).
Now I don't think Seals is crazy for his opinion that absolutely nothing off the ice should affect the Hall question, but I don't agree with it. BUT, I gotta say, between his opinion which results in every Hall-worthy player getting or staying in the Hall no matter what, and your opinion which results, for example, with a former star turned mass murderer staying in the Hall, but a guy who bet on his own team not being allowed into the Hall, well, I kind of prefer Seal's opinion. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 20:10:17
Ok Andyhack, trying to put this to bed, I will not talk at all about our differing opinions of the legal system.
You asked about the difference between a HOFer who disgraces themselves (OJ) and a HOFer's (Roes) disgraces their sport and why I think one should removed or not allowed in the HOF.
OJ was retired from football for 10 years years before his first brush with the law(domestic violence). His serious law issues didn't begin until 15 years away from football and 9 years after he is put into the Hall of Fame. He was not involved in any facit with the NFL or any other football association after his retirement. Plus, the thing he was accused of had no negative effect on the NFL.
That is the difference. Rose's actions were while involved in baseball and directly related to baseball. His actions disgraced his team and the league through association. OJ, on the other hand, was completely removed from Football, and if you think he is a disgrace (like I do), it's hard to argue that he disgraced his sport.
Does that make sense??
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 15:57:24
Beans-guy,
I was focusing primarily on your legal comments, which I continue to totally disagree with. It's more than possible, reasonable, realistic and so on for an innocent man to be acquitted in a criminal court, but found liable in a civil court. That, in and of itself, should not be looked at as a "disgrace" in my book. It could happen to the nicest, most innocent guy in the world.
But I admit that for some reason I assumed you wanted OJ out of the Hall - didn't read your first post closely enough I guess. 1077 apologies for that!!!!
BUT, I don't get your logic about distinguishing "disgrace to yourself" from "disgrace to your sport". So you're saying that if, hypothetically, OJ would have been found guilty of the double homicide, your position wouldn't be different today (you would say that he shouldn't get thrown out of the Hall because what he did, though a disgrace to himself, wasn't a disgrace to the sport of football)?
That's actually an interesting response to Seal's initial question. It's okay to do this unsavoury thing or that VERY unsavory thing, BUT, do not bet on your own baseball team. Maybe I am misunderstanding you Beans-san? Please explain.
And speaking of Rose, you've explained to me that it is a "bad" thing. I"ll give you that point. But, even after reading your long explanation, I still don't really see how it is SO SO SO SO bad (so as to warrant Hall exclusion) IF he didn't bet AGAINST his own team (and until that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt on that question). As far as I read in the stuff you attached there, he didn't admit to betting against his own team.
Edit - just out of interest, those who think he should be out of the Hall, if Rose hadn't have lied about it originally, would your opinion be different? |
| Guest6196 |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 11:41:37
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Andyhack, if you look back on my first post, I used OJ as an example of a person who disgraced himself but not his sport. I never mention in any of my posts that I think OJ should be removed from the Football Hall of Fame. My point was that the man is a disgrace but did not disgrace his sport as Pete Rose is/was by gambling on his sport and the team he was involved in.
One thing I stand firm on is that an innocent man would have not been found guilt in either a criminal or a civil court. Regardless, that's my opinion and irrelevant in the arguement. I do strongly feel that OJ is an example of a man who disgraced himself but not the sport and remains in the HOF.
And to this last fellow who asked for I think me to do my homework. I am thinking that's the pot calling the kettle black??? Here is a link to a report stating the Rose admitted to betting on his own team every night!!
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498
He did say that he never bet on his team to lose, but he also said for 14 years that he never gambled on baseball. To go from a guy who never gambled on baseball to a guy who bet on his own team every night.
I'm done.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
My apologies. Thanks for the link. That was the first time i have ever read an article like that.
No way he should be in the HOF |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 10:22:00
Andyhack, if you look back on my first post, I used OJ as an example of a person who disgraced himself but not his sport. I never mention in any of my posts that I think OJ should be removed from the Football Hall of Fame. My point was that the man is a disgrace but did not disgrace his sport as Pete Rose is/was by gambling on his sport and the team he was involved in.
One thing I stand firm on is that an innocent man would have not been found guilt in either a criminal or a civil court. Regardless, that's my opinion and irrelevant in the arguement. I do strongly feel that OJ is an example of a man who disgraced himself but not the sport and remains in the HOF.
And to this last fellow who asked for I think me to do my homework. I am thinking that's the pot calling the kettle black??? Here is a link to a report stating the Rose admitted to betting on his own team every night!!
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498
He did say that he never bet on his team to lose, but he also said for 14 years that he never gambled on baseball. To go from a guy who never gambled on baseball to a guy who bet on his own team every night.
I'm done.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| Guest6196 |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 08:18:58
Do your homework.
Pete Rose never bet on his own team. If he did you would never hear his name again. That would be the ultimate crime. What if he bet on his team to lose.
Please show me any evidence showing he bet on his own team.
I just hope he makes the HOF before he passes away like Joe Jackson |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 06:32:34
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
.
1) OJ was found civil responsible for the death of two people. If he was completely guiltless in that situation, there is no way he would have been found civil responsible. How about the fact that when the jurors were interviewed after the case, they said that OJ probably committed the murder but the prosecution bungled the case?? And the civil case was unanimous. Not partial, unanimous. There are 8 questions of liabiliy and the were unanimous on all 8. Not just a maybe.
Beans - I'm not trying to bug you, but these are important points.
"Probably" just ain't good enough in a criminal court of law for a finding of "guilt". So that comment by the jurors doesn't hold any weight, legally speaking that is. Whether you think, outside of court, it should be good enough for your own personal assessment of "guilt" is up to you. But, legally, OJ was, and is, from the point of view of criminal law, 100% not guilty of those murders. So, if you're going to mention that particular criminal case in connection with the Hall question, bear in mind that the connection is based simply on him being accused of and tried for murder.
Your opinion seems to be that a murder accusation/trial, in and of itself, should be enough for Hall exclusion/removal. I disagee in principle. Maybe not this case, but such a general rule could lead to very unfair results for some totally innocent people.
As for the civil case, you are incorrect with your "not just a maybe" comment. The civil ruling is in fact just that, a maybe. All those people needed to find was that it was more than 50% likely that OJ was responsible for those deaths. So maybe they only felt 51% sure. It's more than fair to call their finding a "maybe" finding.
Beans - looking at the overall context of the OJ story, I can understand where you are coming from. But certain things you're saying are just flawed in my opinion, and the flaws are very important to understand.
If you are of the opinion that OJ should be kept out of the Hall, you have to argue that a person can be thrown out of the Hall for things not necessarily related to convictions for very serious offenses. That seems to be what you are doing which is fair enough, but I think that when your argument is framed in that light, it does show that MSC's point about OJ just being accused of murder was a valid point (and not even a little tiny joke, let alone a complete joke ).
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 18:34:26
Hey MSC, you know what would be really cool?? If you actually read what I posted.
1) OJ was found civil responsible for the death of two people. If he was completely guiltless in that situation, there is no way he would have been found civil responsible. How about the fact that when the jurors were interviewed after the case, they said that OJ probably committed the murder but the prosecution bungled the case?? And the civil case was unanimous. Not partial, unanimous. There are 8 questions of liabiliy and the were unanimous on all 8. Not just a maybe.
2) The reason I said he would have gotten the chair is because double homicide is a Capital Offense in California. No where did I say he should fry. I said it saved him the chair. So please don't put words into my mouth.
Regardless of if I think he did it or not.......
2) I never once said that OJ disgraced his sport, I said he disgraced himself. To even put yourself in a position to be charges with murder, acquited, and then found civil responsible is a disgrace to anyone. I would sure be ashamed and feel like a disgrace to be in that position even if I was not guilt.
3) I never said OJ was GUILT of Armed Robbery, I said CHARGED with Armed Robbery.
4) There is a huge difference between Staal betting $100 on a game his brother is playing in and Rose betting on a game he has a certain level of control over. Really, both are wrong. The whole thing with gambling is assumption. That's not my opinion, it's the way gambling in sport is viewed. That's why it is wrong. There is no way to difinitively track what people bet and if the actions of a player or manager reflect that of someone who has money riding on the game. Hypothetically, Say Rose bets $10,000 for his team to win. Then, when no one is around he bets $100,000 for his team to lose. That bookie he placed the bet with can do so many different things with that information it makes it completely unfair for all other gamblers as well as the teams involved in the game, and overall the league and sport. Does that not make sense??
5) As a moderator, I have a right to my opinion. I also have the right to disagree with your opinion. If I think your opinion is a complete joke, that has nothing to do with what I do as a moderator. You don't have to agree with me, but accept the fact that I don't agree with you.
Gambling on a professional sport you are involved in is wrong in my opinion and always will be.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 14:42:18
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
If a player was found guilty of manslaughter, an accidental killing or the likes I would hope they would keep him in the HHOF.
Irvine
Why? Think of your own family.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs.
I still stick with what I originally said. I don't feel he should be punished or banished from everything he has done and or accomplished in his life for an accident.
i'd want him to pay in some way... but not by having him removed from a hall of fame. Perhaps prison.
Irvine
Yes, that would be much less humiliating for the poor man that killed your family.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
| MSC |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 06:50:46
I'm confused now, I always thought there was a difference between being charged with somthing and being convicted of somthing. As far as I can tell, to date, Simpson has only been charged with armed robbery he has not been convicted. Kobe Bryant was once charged with sexual assualt and rape, but was never convicted. Is he a disgrace to his sport or is he still a star? You are correct, he didn't get the maximum pentalty of the chair but it should also be noted that he also didn't even receive the minimum sentance for manslaughter in criminal court.
As far as the Staal Vs. Rose comparison being a joke I fully and whole heartedly disagree. What exactly is $10,000 a day to someone worth multi millions of dollars? Oh I'd say that's about the same as you or me making $10 bets every day. The only difference is the amount, but the amount is all relative. If someone is to take an anti gambling stance against Rose then there should be an anti gambling stance taken against every single athlete who ever bet money on the out come of their game whether it's $20 or $20,000. There should be no "you betting $10 on the game is wrong, but you on the other hand betting $100 is alot worse" It's the same thing.
Might I also thank the moderator's for their professionalism in calling my opinion a complete joke. I'll try to be more like minded next time around Sir. Grrrr...OJ should fry for being found not guilty, how dare he have the nerve to go on living his life and trying to make a dime off of his life experiances....shame for sure. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 06:35:31
beans oh i agree 100% that rose is a disgrace to baseball and has no place being honourd in the bhof,, its just that they are still his records and they shouldn;t be calling ty cobb the all time hit leader,,,, the other thing is base ball was very inconsistent with rose,,,, for example in 99 (rose had now been banned from baseball for 14 years) pete rose was chosen to represent base ball as a part of their all century team,,,, (the best players of the centuray) he also recived the second loudest ovaition at the ceromony next to williams whos was 91 and in a wheel chair,,,,,,, its just odd that baseball would honour him after stripping it all away from him.... and about oj agreed 110%
"i'd walk through fire to play baseball again" -pete rose-
Pasty |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 06:14:51
Ahhh, no time but want to chip in this important point to Beans.
It's technical, yes, but to me, it is a crucial point in the legal system. MSC is correct. O.J. was never found "guilty" of murder. He was found "liable" in a civil suit. There is a HUGE difference!
Do I think he was guilty? Yes, that's my best guess.
But that doesn't matter. Innocent til proven guilty means just that. And it means innocent til proven guilty in a criminal court of law where the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", as opposed to the "balance of probabilites" (over 50%) in a civil court.
Call O.J. what you want, but he has not been convicted of murder, and in that sense, MSC makes a valid point when he asks, "what if Gretzky or so and so were accused of, but acquitted of murder?". (Edit - though, to make it a fair comparison, the accusation would have to be more than just MSC declaring it on his own, there would have to be enough evidence to take a guy to trial,...)
If you are going to throw O.J. out of the Hall it has to be for other reasons than being found "guilty" of murder in court (which reasons, perhaps do exist). But it is important to understand that point.
Edit - and Rose doesn't have to prove that he didn't bet against his own team. A prosecutor would have to prove that he did do those things (again, beyond a reasonable doubt). Beans, bear in mind that the question here is not only did a guy do bad things, but also even if he did, should that matter? There are all types of other avenues of punishment. In Rose's case, if everything else were the same (but they let him in the HHOF), I would still say that his reputation had been greatly tarnished and that he had received significant punishment. And if you believe that punishment wasn't strict enough, well, maybe the justice system needs to be tougher in such cases. It is possible to argue that point and keep it totally separate from this Hall question.
Okay - I'm out of here! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 22:20:08
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
OJ was even a first ballott HOF'er....I don't understand how you could say he disgraced himself. How is it a disgrace to be falsely accused of murder? I hereby go on record and accuse Wayne Gretzky of murder. Is he now disgraced? Wayne and OJ are guilty of commiting the same number of murders, zero. But OJ is a disgrace?
I also don't think what Pete Rose did is a disgrace to the game. He wasn't point shaving, he wasn't throwing games, he was simply making bets that his team would win. What's the difference between him doing that and say Jordan Staal betting Eric Staal $100 that Pens win the next game against the Canes?
This is a complete joke. OJ was found guilt in a civil suit and had a $33.5 million judgement against him. Although the evidence did not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to give him the chair(Capital Punishment in California), there was enough proof to lay a civil responsibility. So you are wrong that Gretzky and OJ have been found guilt of the same number of murders. And yes, OJ is a disgrace. Found civilly guilt, trying to make money off the murder of two people (the book "If I did it,")and charged with armed robbery???? What does a guy have to do to be a disgrace in your eyes???
And you seriously think that as the Manager or a player for the Reds that Rose did nothing to impact the game towards the outcome he wanted?? Any time someone bets on a sport they are involved in, it's dirty. The Staals are actually a crappy example. We aren't talking about $100 between friends, Rose was betting a minimum of $10,000 a day. That's at least $1.6 million per year? And he wasn't doing anything wrong?? So what if he said he only bet on his team to win, he also denied betting on baseball for 14 years. He's a real stand up, honest, believable guy in my books. Who's to say that Rose wouldn't put $10,000 down on his team to win, then call his bookie when no one was around and bet $100,000 for them to lose. Prove he never did that!
Let's not forget that St. Pete was also arrest, fined, and served time in the Federal Prison on Tax Evasion. Like I said, real stand up guy.
I do stand corrected on the stats part. However, he was banned from baseball, so it makes sense that it's not on the MLB endorsed site, but it's not like you can't find the records. Try CBS.com.
Bottom line, I would love to see the world through your rose colored glasses. No pun intended.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 21:47:35
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Here's the thing, Gambling on sports is ok if you are not involved in sports. As soon as you gamble on sports when you are involved in sport, it's virtually the worse offense possible. There are so many negative repercussions to it, I can't even think to list them all. The big ones that come to mind are financial. The sports gambling industry in the states is a multi-billion dollar a year venture. As soon as people start to manipulate that, there are huge issues. Both legal and illegal ventures could stand to lose or gain substantial sums of money. Then there is the ramifications towards the players on the team. Also repercussions on the team and city itself. Most importantly, the fan who pays their hard earned money to watch their team play and the reputation of the sport itself. It's something about dishonesty and the perception of "fixing" a game that will always be fround upon in any competition.
All things considered, Pete Rose was the example for the North American sporting world. Gamble on sports when you are involved in the sport and you will pay a very heavy price. However, none of his records were stripped and all of this stats remain in the baseball world.
Finally, in regards to the Hall of Fame of any sport. The players put in are based of of what they do not only performance wise, but the respect they give as well as bring to the sport. Al Eagleson is a perfect example. He disgraced the sport, as well as himself, and deserved to be pulled for the HOF. Rose disgrace both himself and the sport as well, so rightfully so he was banned and can not get voted in. If a HOFer does something to disgrace himself but not the sport, I can see the powers at be to keep him in the Hall.
Just a question, does anyone know if O.J. Simpson is in the Football HOF?? If he is, has he been removed?? If he is still in, there is an example of someone not being removed from the Hall. He's disgraced himself by being charges with murder(although aquitted) and now charged with Armed Robbery. Did he disgrace the game by his actions?? I don't think so. Not like Eaglesone and Rose did.
My rant is done.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
go to mlb.com look at the all time leaders list pete rose had more career hits then ty cobb but it still says ty cobb holds the record
Pasty |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 21:22:33
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaSeal
What if Gretzky or Orr were caught doing someting VERY unsavoury and illegal. Should their HHoF status be stripped away?
No cup for Dino, what a shame
I'm sorry but yes. A thousand times yes. Why do good athletes have the right to be above the law? They don't. End of story.
Habs get number 25 this year
I didn't ask if the player should be above the law. You still didn't answer the question.
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| MSC |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 19:51:57
OJ was even a first ballott HOF'er....I don't understand how you could say he disgraced himself. How is it a disgrace to be falsely accused of murder? I hereby go on record and accuse Wayne Gretzky of murder. Is he now disgraced? Wayne and OJ are guilty of commiting the same number of murders, zero. But OJ is a disgrace?
I also don't think what Pete Rose did is a disgrace to the game. He wasn't point shaving, he wasn't throwing games, he was simply making bets that his team would win. What's the difference between him doing that and say Jordan Staal betting Eric Staal $100 that Pens win the next game against the Canes? |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 19:39:34
O.J. Simpson was inducted into the FHOF in 1985, he is still in the hall.
Interesting fact: Before the Toronto Raptors were allowed to be an NBA franchise the OLG had to pull all basketball games off of the Pro-Line betting forms.
To this day you cannot bet on an NBA game in Ontario...legally...all the other provincial Lottery Gaming Corporations have NBA basketball...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 16:03:01
Here's the thing, Gambling on sports is ok if you are not involved in sports. As soon as you gamble on sports when you are involved in sport, it's virtually the worse offense possible. There are so many negative repercussions to it, I can't even think to list them all. The big ones that come to mind are financial. The sports gambling industry in the states is a multi-billion dollar a year venture. As soon as people start to manipulate that, there are huge issues. Both legal and illegal ventures could stand to lose or gain substantial sums of money. Then there is the ramifications towards the players on the team. Also repercussions on the team and city itself. Most importantly, the fan who pays their hard earned money to watch their team play and the reputation of the sport itself. It's something about dishonesty and the perception of "fixing" a game that will always be fround upon in any competition.
All things considered, Pete Rose was the example for the North American sporting world. Gamble on sports when you are involved in the sport and you will pay a very heavy price. However, none of his records were stripped and all of this stats remain in the baseball world.
Finally, in regards to the Hall of Fame of any sport. The players put in are based of of what they do not only performance wise, but the respect they give as well as bring to the sport. Al Eagleson is a perfect example. He disgraced the sport, as well as himself, and deserved to be pulled for the HOF. Rose disgrace both himself and the sport as well, so rightfully so he was banned and can not get voted in. If a HOFer does something to disgrace himself but not the sport, I can see the powers at be to keep him in the Hall.
Just a question, does anyone know if O.J. Simpson is in the Football HOF?? If he is, has he been removed?? If he is still in, there is an example of someone not being removed from the Hall. He's disgraced himself by being charges with murder(although aquitted) and now charged with Armed Robbery. Did he disgrace the game by his actions?? I don't think so. Not like Eaglesone and Rose did.
My rant is done.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| Alex |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 15:25:04
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
pete rose was the greatest ball player of all time,,, maybe dont vote him into the hall but at least acknowledge his existence,,,, baseball has completely pretended he never existed this is wrong,, he is the all time hits leader not ty cobb pretending he isn;t is a crime in itself
Pasty
Are his NUMBERS also erased? This is awful. HOF is one thing, but come on. Geez louise man, he bet on the game get out of you little ego clouds and give the guy a freakin break.
Sorry. That is really the line in my book.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 14:59:29
pete rose was the greatest ball player of all time,,, maybe dont vote him into the hall but at least acknowledge his existence,,,, baseball has completely pretended he never existed this is wrong,, he is the all time hits leader not ty cobb pretending he isn;t is a crime in itself
Pasty |
| irvine |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 04:26:13
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
If a player was found guilty of manslaughter, an accidental killing or the likes I would hope they would keep him in the HHOF.
Irvine
Why? Think of your own family.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs.
Okay, and thinking of my own family. If a person made a mistake, extreme as it must have been for death to occur...
I still stick with what I originally said. I don't feel he should be punished or banished from everything he has done and or accomplished in his life for an accident. As extreme as this accident may have been.
Now, that being said. I also stick with I had said that had been "censored" by the forums mods. If it were something of that nature, or a number of other things... I'd feel differently.
I can forgive an accident, as bad as it may be. I'd be pissed, and I am sure i'd want him to pay in some way... but not by having him removed from a hall of fame. Perhaps prison.
Irvine |
| MSC |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 19:53:46
If they're being considered for the Hall of Fame then they're a good athlete. If they weren't a HOF type player then it's just an unfortunate incident and that's the end of it. I haven't heard anyone mention Rob Ramage yet. Why? Because he wasn't a HOF type icon.
Now if a hockey player got involved in some Conrad Blackish type business ventures both before and after hockey should this affect his HHOF membership or potential membership? NO....The player got greedy, that doesn't change who he is or what he did on the ice. It's the Hockey Hall of Fame last I checked not the Hockey and Other Related or Non-Related Off-Ice Incidents Hall of Fame. |
| Alex |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 19:44:10
quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaSeal
What if Gretzky or Orr were caught doing someting VERY unsavoury and illegal. Should their HHoF status be stripped away?
No cup for Dino, what a shame
I'm sorry but yes. A thousand times yes. Why do good athletes have the right to be above the law? They don't. End of story.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 19:43:01
What if Gretzky or Orr were caught doing someting VERY unsavoury and illegal. Should their HHoF status be stripped away?
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 15:50:31
I see. Well, yes, that would fit under MSC's "very extreme circumstances" or meet my "malicious/evil wrongdoing" test. But I guess my point is that the wrongdoing has to be something extreme like that (whether it's that or first degree murder or the postal thing or some other terrible things that we don't need to mention the details of here), before we should really start putting a lot of weight on the player's off the ice wrongdoings. And I think it should be something that a player has been convicted of in court, not inuendo or rumours, or even a failed attempt in court (unless there is some crazy settlement which basically let's a guilty guy walk even though everyone knows he did something terrible).
Anyway, some of these exceptions are indeed unsavoury topics, but I think that the unsavoury exceptions, in a way, clarify the rule. For example, next to some of these things, you can see just how insignificant, RELATIVELY SPEAKING that is, gambling on sports is (unless it is against your own team). I'm not necessarily saying that there shouldn't be rules and penalties against gambling. I just don't think it should come into the Hall question. It's simply not bad enough in my book (yet to be published by the way).
Here's an example that is perhaps a little closer to the gambling one (worse than gambling, but not as "evil" as some of these other examples - in other words, maybe also not bad enough for Hall removal either). Purely hypothetical.
A HHOF player, both before and after retirement, gets involved in all types of side businesses not related to hockey. He apparently does very well, but eventually all types of strange business practices are discovered, and he is convicted for a series of Conrad Black-like fraud-related activities. Any thoughts? |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 06:22:19
Pete Rose was never elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
He has been banned from MLB, and the BHOF voted that if you are banned from MLB, then you cannot be voted into the BHOF...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
| Alex |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 06:09:09
OK LeafsRockPLanet. I UNDERSTAND that it is illegal. I am playing devil's advocate and saying why. Why is it so bad guys? I don't see anything wrong with it.
Of course, as it is against the law, Rose should be stripped of HOF title. However, I am saying the law is kind of pointless in the first place.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| Leafs Rock Planet |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 06:07:21
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
LeafsRockPlanet, what may I ask is wrong with that? I mean, come on. Legally I see why, but legal is as legal as the lawmakers decide. Maybe I am missing something, please spell it out to me.
Habs get number 25 this year
I-L-L-E-G-A-L, is that spelled out enough for you Alex.
You are once again contradicting yourself. First you say that there is nothing wrong with what Pete Rose did by gambling on his own games and then you come back and say that it was wrong according to the law.
The law is boss. You follow the law or you get thrown into jail or in this case banned for life. So it cant be right in a way, but wrong in the light of the law. |
| Alex |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 05:50:22
LeafsRockPlanet, what may I ask is wrong with that? I mean, come on. Legally I see why, but legal is as legal as the lawmakers decide. Maybe I am missing something, please spell it out to me.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| Leafs Rock Planet |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 05:27:09
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
. The guy was a great player who wanted to make a little more money by betting on his own team, I really don't see a problem with that.
Are you actually suggesting that there is nothing wrong with betting on any major league sport and more specifically on your own team? This is rediculous that you dont see anything wrong with that.
I am not trying to be a s*** disturber here but come on, get resonable. |
| Alex |
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 05:18:02
Let me clarify a little
This forum is a bit amiguos as the title refers to a player known for one incident, and then we start talking about material which is edited out, no guess as to why.
Now, specifically in Pete Rose's case I would say he should have no reason to be stripped of HOF status. The guy was a great player who wanted to make a little more money by betting on his own team, I really don't see a problem with that. However, that being said, you know what, protocol is protocol. If they say that wearing plad shirts is against their criteria, argue it 'till you're blue in the face, if you show up to training camp in a plad shirt, they aren't going to be lenient on you on account of 'well I think ....'
Pete Roase knew what he did was wrong. We can argue whether the rule in itself has some basis to it. But he defied it, and knew that being discovered would hold at least some degree of consequences, especially for such a high profile player. It is unfortunate, but legally and morally, he should not be in the HOF.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| MSC |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 21:22:09
Andy, nope, wan't referring to you.
Ty Cobb was a mean SOB and an out right racist, by todays standards. When he was doing his thing he wasn't out of the ordinary, he was a reflection of society at that time. I'm not saying it was the right attitude but what I am saying is they didn't know any different back then so why should he be the one who's held accountable for an entire generations way of life.
I think that only in very extreme circumstances should a players off ice actions be taken into consideration when talking about any HOF. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 21:11:38
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
How can you possibly compare Pete Rose being confident and betting on HIS OWN TEAMS to win to someone gunning down innocent people?
MSC - I'm not sure if you were asking me the above question, but if you were, I wasn't comparing the two things but was just listing different situations, that's all. They are, of course, very different, but both situations come under the general heading, "off the ice/field" problems.
I agree with you about Rose. If he only bet on his team, I don't think that's such a bad thing.
Alex - maybe I guessed wrong. I missed the example that was deleted.
I'm not sure what you are alluding too actually. But, you know, Ty Cobb was one mean son of a bitch, and there are others in the Hall of Fames of the different sports who were VERY far from angels too. But Cobb was a GREAT ball player and, in my opinion, that should be, by leaps and bounds, first and foremost in the Hall question. In my view, the other stuff should only be given a lot of weight if it's absoultely EVIL, or if it directly affects the sport in question and its players (a la Eagleson) .
|
| Alex |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 20:45:52
Players in the hockey hall of fame are their for their superb athletic ability. Why? Why should they be signled out? Because we look up to them. Because they are admirable. Because they did what we consider worth recognition.
Now, if someone goes out and does something, well, not worth recognition, and I think you all know what I am alluding too -- does that not defy every logic involved in the system? Does that not undermine what basic decency comes to stand for?
These people have worked long and hard to make it big in the NHL. We look up to them. And they go ahead and influence many by showing them that as role models this is what they do?
It just ain't right. It just ain't right to the game, it just ain't right to the fans, it just ain't right to those who are in and must now share a spot with someone like htis, it just ain't right to those who are atruggling to gain entrance and fall short in the heels of these people.
Of course they do not deserve entrance. 100 percent not
Habs get number 25 this year |
| MSC |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 20:17:17
How can you possibly compare Pete Rose being confident and betting on HIS OWN TEAMS to win to someone gunning down innocent people? |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 18:17:12
Well, I don't know what the deleted example was (though I can guess) but my general thought on this question is that the answer should, in almost all circumstances, be NO, the off-the-ice stuff should NOT affect the Hall question. And the exceptions should be related to criminal activities, as opposed to "lifestyle issues" in my opinion.
Even for criminal stuff, I think it depends on each individual situation. Eagleson's wrongdoings, for example, directly affected the game of hockey and hockey players. His wrongdoings, therefore, should enter the picture in my opinion, and I'm glad he is not in the Hall anymore.
The Rose-type wrongdoing, on the other hand, doesn't outrage me (assuming he didn't bet against his own team). I don't think that it is a bad enough wrongdoing to keep someone out.
I'd say the same for someone who is convicted of a crime like criminal negligence. It's bad, yes, but not bad enough in my opinion. I know that families of the victims of such criminal negligence might not agree, but I think their issues with the player in question should be dealt with in the court system.
Beyond that it gets trickier, but even there I think each individual situation has to be looked at on its own. Generally, unless the crime is quite malicious, I don't know if it should enter the picture. For example, if a guy kills someone in a barroom fight, it would seem to me to be a significantly different situation from if a guy does some Paul Bernardo like evil things.
As for the post office example, almost any scenario there is probably "bad" enough to warrant the player's removal from the Hall. The only possible exception I can think of is where the player literally snaps seconds before the event (in other words, clearly, without any doubt whatsoever, becomes temporarily insane). Even this exception might warrant a removal from the Hall though. I mainly mention it just to reinforce the poiint that every case has to be looked at on its own. I don't agree with a blanket 'If you commit a crime, you are out of the Hall" type of rule.
Not sure if the above makes me an idiot or not, but that's my answer to Seal-guy's question.
|
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 16:10:50
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
If a player was found guilty of manslaughter, an accidental killing or the likes I would hope they would keep him in the HHOF.
Irvine
Why? Think of your own family.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 15:55:10
People who are guilty of the crimes that you have specified should never be honoured for anything else in their lives, no matter how they excelled. If you want to draw a comparison to Pete Rose, make it comparable. If you think that your comparison IS comparable, you should seek help IMMEDIATELY!
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
|
|
