| Author |
 Topic  |
|
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 |
 |
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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? |
Edited by - andyhack on 01/23/2008 18:59:48 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Pete Rose Rule 
