So chances are likely that Pete Rose will not make it into the MLB Hall of Fame if Commissioner Bud Selig doesn:t act on a reinstatement agreement before Rose reaches the 20-year mark away from the game - the final opportunity he has available based on current rules and regulations in place for Hall of Fame consideration (retired for 5 years and no more than 20).
The Baseball Writers Association of America has a rule that states that anyone on the permanently ineligible list couldn't appear on the BBWAA ballot
Why does not the IAAF or any other governing body like your USATF not ban anyone:s records and/or performances - each and every single, solitary one despite time-frame - if a person has been found guilty of tarnishing the image and spirit of athletics - and/or ends up on a permanently ineligible to compete list? This is not a drug-related topic, per sé, rather a general question about people who may do things (which seems to typicall surround drugs) which spoil the reputation of our sport. If some athlete where to be found guilty of some "high crime" in the athletics world, should not the associations governing that athlete act upon that and strike out that athlete from any, all and every competition ever?
a. I thought this was a 'satch' thread
b. Isn't it 'funny' how Pete Rose is such a pariah, when so many other baseball players have done worse (not that I condone gambling, but on the Cosmic Injustice Scale, I find PED cheats MORE guilty).
c. Sports, in general, seem to have some of the most hypocritical organizations when it comes to 'righteous indignation". Personalities determine how 'guilty' you are. TO is guilty by hubris.
What you are asking for goes a bit beyond what happened to Rose. He still has all of his records firmly in the books – he is just having a bit of a problem getting into the HOF (which by any reasonable measure he is a lock on based on his career as a player).
Also, in baseball, outside of gambling on the game, there are no ‘crimes or misdemeanors’ that I am aware of that automatically get you banned. In fact, I know of no player in my lifetime outside of Rose who has been banned, and there have been plenty of crimes and misdemeanors committed in that time, PEDs aside.
Lastly, Rose will get more chances to get in the HOF down the road if he can get off the banned list. Don’t know the rules exactly, but there is an ‘old timers’ election to the HOF every year also.
But to answer the question at hand, retroactive record pulling would get ugly in a hurry. And it would be a bit unfair to all involved to go back in time from when you implemented this rule. Typically laws are not applied retroactively, so undoubtedly lawyers would get involved early and often.
tafnut wrote:a. I thought this was a 'satch' thread
Tafnut, if I start a Satch thread, it will be titled Satched for Life - Without the Possibility of Parole
Can see your point here. We had a guy on our university DM who broke some team rule and got the boot - not just from the team, but from each and every race he had ever participated in... our record almanac has a "---" where his name ought to have been. Had the same line of thinking with this thread.
Heard a couple of talking heads on the radio the other day and they were booting about the idea that his numbers say he belongs in the Hall and in the Hall he should be. But by what he did, he has disgraced himself, so he shouldn't get any of the honor that goes along with it. As in, they just quietly put up his plaque. No induction ceremony, not ever invited to any of the HOF affairs. But honor is numbers, as they should be. Interesting.
GH:s T.O. thread puts this into even more perspective...
article wrote:PHILADELPHIA -- Terrell Owens was shut down completely: his grievance, his time with the Philadelphia Eagles, his season.
For conduct proven to be a "destructive and continuing threat" to his team, an arbitrator ruled Wednesday that the Eagles were justified in suspending their All-Pro receiver for four games, and are within their rights to deactivate him for the rest of the year...(more found here)
I agree, Pete Rose was always a no-class act. But was he any worse than Ty Cobb? Cobb was a racist sociopath who was almost universally reviled, even by his own teammates. But he could play baseball, and so could Pete Rose. Maybe there should be a good-guys hall of fame and a real jackass hall of fame. Until that happens, Pete should be in the HOF.
This whole process involves a lot of hypocrisy. It is not as if MLB has been a bastion of morality all these years. In a recent New Yorker piece the writer found it tough to work up much indignation about Jason Giambi and the other PED users. HIs attitude was that most any of the rough-cut, hard-hands, hard-drinking, fast-living, womanizing, uneducated, blue-collar HOF legends would not have had much problem shooting up some drug that might make them a lot more $$$ and extend their careers. After the Black Sox scandal payoffs from gamblers apparently stopped. But do we really believe that Pete Rose was the only big leaguer to bet on his own games? If the criterion for HOF-ness is never to have gambled, then Michael Jordan should not make the NBA Hall.