Skip to content

Pete Rose sounded almost reasonable on Fox News yesterday

Jan 10, 2013, 12:30 PM EDT

pete rose getty Getty Images

And not just compared to the silly people who surrounded him!  Here are the Hit King’s comments when asked by Gretta Van Susteren his thoughts about still not being in the Hall of Fame:

ROSE: Well, I’m on the ineligible list. I’ve never been on list to receive any votes. And I must tell you that I’m not in the Hall of Fame because I’m the one that made the mistake and screwed up, and I can’t sit here on your show or Sean’s show or Bill’s show and complain about anybody because I’m the one that messed up.

And in my situation, we just live everyday life and have fun and try to get a second chance sometime. I won’t need a third. If I ever get a second chance, we’ll see what happens as far as the Hall of Fame is concerned.

I’ve lost track over the years, but of all of Rose’s different stances (Innocent/defiant, innocent/contrite, guilty/defiant, guilty/contrite) I like this one the best.

And just for the record, let me reiterate my Pete Rose stance: I think he should still be banned from holding baseball operations positions, from scout, to couch to manager to front office, because I think his judgment and lack of appreciation for baseball’s rules represent a risk to the game. But I do think he should be allowed to work in baseball in an ambassador/fan relations/philanthropic/whatever kind of role,  and I do think he should be in the Hall of Fame as a player because he was a hell of a player.

  1. ironhawk - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM

    If your job here is going to start requiring you to watch fox news you should ask for hazard pay.

    • philsieg - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM

      Well, he could ask his boss for a bullshit detector, but since it’s Fox news you can assume if you see their lips moving, it’s bullshit. (To be fair they may deserve some slack because in employing Steve Doocy and Sean Hannity Fox News employs two of the stupidest human beings ever to be on TV, and this is from a guy who grew up with Pinky Lee and Clarabelle the clown.)

      • skids003 - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM

        Fox isn’t near as bad as MSNBC, they don’t even attempt to report the news. MSNBC is completely agenda driven as to what they even show as news. Spin it and tell total lies.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        Well, this is heading in a productive direction.

      • bigharold - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM

        “.. Steve Doocy and Sean Hannity Fox News employs two of the stupidest human beings ever to be on TV..”

        You Sir are being kind. They’re more like the stupidest human beings that are let out, at large on their own without the benefit of a caregiver.

      • philsieg - Jan 10, 2013 at 6:44 PM

        Exhibit A in Fox’s stupidity. Apparently the economic wizards there seem to think the hypothetical $1 trillion platinum coin would have to be made of…drumroll… $1 trillion dollars worth of platinum. Apparently Neil Cavuto got an F in Currency 101.

      • djpostl - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:47 PM

        We’ve all seen so many studies that show Fox News viewers are the most tragically misinformed viewers on Earth outside of your average inhabitant of Pakistan’s tribal regions…but my favorite by a long shot was the study that showed they knew less than someone who hadn’t watched ANY news for over a month.

      • dontfeedgigantor - Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM


        They were obviously talking about hard currency. You’re obviously talking about fiat currency. You obviously don’t know much about currency.

        And now I feel disgusting because I just defended Fox News.

        By the way, all of the news channels suck equally. If you think any of them care about anything other than ratings, you’re deluded.

    • japatar - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM

      For all the Fox News haters out there. Don’t be scared. Just because NBC runs this sight and are MAJOR liberals, they’re not going to take away your right to blog on one of their websites if you like something you see on Fox. Or are they????????? Bwah ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • dontfeedgigantor - Jan 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        “Liberal” and “conservative” have actual meaning in the way that Fox News and MSNBC and people like you use it. No seriously, it’s totally true! I read it on the internet!

  2. nderdog - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM

    Am I the only one who laughed thinking of Pete Rose as a couch? Best typo I’ve read all day!

    • bobwsc - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM

      when he’s clad in the technicolor dream-coat, he’s more couch than man:

      • historiophiliac - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM

        I love that pic. Is it Pete Rose or Elton John? I don’t know.

      • bobwsc - Jan 10, 2013 at 5:04 PM

        the glasses say Elton John, but I think EJ would pair those up with a white or lavender suit, not the pimp-activewear jacket and hat ensemble that Charlie Hustle rocks here.

    • gloccamorra - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM

      To be a couch Pete would have to wear a suit of luxurious Herculon.

      • bigdicktater - Jan 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM

        How about ‘Corinthian leather’?

    • yahmule - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:31 PM

      Reminds of Pete’s interview with Brüno.

  3. raysfan1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

    Couldn’t have worded my own opinion of Rose any better. Thanks.

    • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM


  4. buckeyeluvn - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

    Charlie Hustle should be in the Hall Of Fame!

  5. number42is1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM

    Pete Rose not being in the Hall makes ZERO sense. yea sure.. if you want to ban him for life do it from all baseball related ACTIVITIES but to not have the player with the most hits in MLB history WITHOUT AND SUSPICION OF CHEATING is pure stupidity

    • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

      Just because no evidence was discovered doesn’t mean there was/is no suspicion that Rose bet for and/or against the Reds.

      • number42is1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        does NOT change his stats…

      • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:34 PM

        That has what to do with my statement? I was merely arguing that there is indeed suspicion of Pete Rose cheating.

      • number42is1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:55 PM

        oh jeez… ok lets try this.. and i will say it slowly so that you can understand. there was never any suspicion of him cheating at sports playing as a player.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

        Yes, please speak down to me.

        1. Rose was allegedly gambling on baseball in ’85 and ’86 when he was player-manager
        2. Pete Rose bet on Reds games

        Nope. No suspicion of cheating here. Thanks for speaking slowly while typing so that I could comprehend your rock-solid argument.

      • number42is1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        “1. Rose was allegedly gambling on baseball in ’85 and ’86 when he was player-manager
        2. Pete Rose bet on Reds games

        1. does not change his stats
        2. does NOT change his stats.

        if ANYTHING it would mean that he could have been better??? well done.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM

        So there is absolutely no reason to believe he didn’t bet against the Reds? And are you praising his 66 wRC+ in his final year? Yes this is most likely a mixture of aging and bad luck, but apparently there is zero suspicion that he threw away a PA here or there.

      • abaird2012 - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

        Or used HGH …

      • anxovies - Jan 11, 2013 at 6:47 PM

        Anybody who thinks that Pete threw a game (a) never saw him play in person, (b) is a moron.

    • number42is1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:38 PM

      “Yes this is most likely a mixture of aging and bad luck, but apparently there is zero suspicion that he threw away a PA here or there.”

      i am not sure i can explain this to you any better… if his stats were lower due to his betting then its only more of a reason for him to be in the hall.. it means that he could have been much much better than his already great numbers…

      • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:07 PM

        You yelled that Pete Rose is “WITHOUT AND (sic) SUSPICION OF CHEATING.” I show that taking no real leaps in logic, that yes there is suspicion of Rose cheating during his playing career. You turn around and say, “if his stats were lower due to his betting then its only more of a reason for him to be in the hall.” This has what to do with suspicions of cheating? I don’t care what his stats are.

    • gloccamorra - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM

      Betting on baseball is against MLB rules and the FBI has betting slips with Pete’s signature and fingerprints on them to prove it. There’s also the matter of the related felony conviction. It doesn’t matter who he bet for or against, it was on baseball games.

      • timmmah10 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM

        I’m confused, how is this “cheating”? If you want to talk about cheaters in the hall, how about all the vaseline wielding pitchers of the 50s and 60s, the admitted cheaters that are in the hall (before the steroid era, people still took steroids!?!), and lets not even talk about guys like Sosa and others that used corked bats in the past. THAT is cheating. Betting got him banned from baseball, and rightly so, but his ban of the hall of fame is ridiculous.

        His numbers are as legit as the next guy. And if you want to say there’s a moral code to get into the hall of fame… what about the racist monster known as the Georgia Peach? Ty Cobb is light years worse of a person than Chuck Hustle, Barry Bonds, or any of those guys.

        Betting on a team (for or against) and still putting up hall of fame numbers should be condemned much less than all convicted steroid users. I’ll say that’s an IMO statement, but I don’t know how anyone could have a different opinion.

    • bigharold - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM

      “Pete Rose not being in the Hall makes ZERO sense. …”

      Really? The rule concerning gambling is pretty clear as is the consequences, .. lifetime ban. And, there was never any doubt that he broke that rule that is posted in EVERY MLB clubhouse. He then lied about for decades and even after he admitted it he minimized his actions and rationalized his HOF worthiness by pointing to other players transgressions. If you can’t enforce that rule under the circumstances of Rose’s case, .. how blatant Roses’ actions were, high profile he was, .. then you might as well do away with that rule. Interesting that there is a large part of baseball fans, (not saying you specifically), that would never grant Barry Bonds entry to the HOF because of his, to date, unsubstantiated accusations of PED use regardless of the fact that Bonds was clearly a HOFer without the HR surge. But, will overlook Rose undermining all of baseball.

      I’m glad he said what he did. It’s the first time I’ve ever heard or read about him unequivocally take responsibility for his actions without hedging in some way. I’d ever wager that it’s the first step in his effort to get removed from the banned list. Which is great because I too would like to see Rose in the HOF. His ferocious play, grit and all out effort certainly make him hall worthy and he was one of my favorite players when I was young. But, him not being in the HOF makes a lot of sense, .. he earned it.

      • number42is1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 7:35 PM

        harold – it does not change the fact that as a baseball player he was one of the best EVER to play the game and that his betting had no effect on his numbers or his ability as a player. AS A PLAYER he should be in the HOF for all his accomplishments. to deny this is to deny the very idea of the HOF. you are honoring those that PLAYED the game true and great. gambling is in no way comparable to the cheating that today’s players are accused of.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 9:20 PM

        How is gambling on games that one is playing/managing in less of a crime than allegedly taking steroids (when said supplements were not against any specific MLB rules)?

      • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM

        Pete Rose: Played the game true.

        Simply brilliant.

      • bigharold - Jan 10, 2013 at 9:31 PM

        He willingly broke the cardinal rule of baseball, .. the only one that is posted in every clubhouse in MLB. There is no question about is credentials as a player merely his eligibility. He knew exactly what rule he was breaking and the consequences, .. life time ban. Which means he is not eligible for the HOF making his worthiness and therefore his induction a moot point.

        He broke the rule and rather than fess up he denied it for about 20 years. I’d wager a lot that had he admitted his gambling and analogized in the mid 80s he’d have been reinstated and be in the HOF by now.

        Pete Rose’s transgression was significant and blatant. He’s finally taking the first step to rehabilitation. And, it’s about time. The bottom line is had they let him off the hook then how do you enforce punishment for any transgression? I’d really like to see him in the HOF before he’s dead but he’s not there now due to his own recklessness and hubris.

  6. thomas2727 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

    Maybe I am missing something but the Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball are officially two different entities so how can MLB dictate who is eligible to be part of a completely separate organization?

    I know the book answer but from a legal standpoint?

    • The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM

      They can’t. The Hall of Fame simply decided on a policy is to disqualify anyone on MLB’s ineligible list.

      • thomas2727 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        I would love to know the back story on the Hall of Fame falling inline with MLB on this. It has a greasy feel that the HOF was pressured to disqualify anybody on the ineligible list.

        As somebody else mentioned this policy was not adopted until after Pete Rose banned from MLB.

    • markfrednubble - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM

      Mabry is correct. To expand on that a bit, think for a moment how life would be for the Hall of Fame, tucked away in upstate New York, if they did not have a cooperative relationship with MLB. Try imagining how you could pretend to run the Baseball Hall of Fame without a mutually beneficial alliance with the entity you exist to promote and honor. Yeah, pretty much an uphill existence leading to extinction. The HOF needs MLB a lot more than MLB needs the HOF.

      I assume Jeff Idelson gets the occasional call from Bud Selig or someone else in the MLB offices, wanting to reinforce that Cooperstown is on the same page with regard to what MLB considers important matters. And one of those matters must be honoring without hesitation MLB’s ineligible list with regard to the HOF ballot.

      • thomas2727 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM

        Unfortunately your explanation makes sense. Bud could drop the hammer in a second and donations from MLB would be gone.

        The sad part is I just read where the Hall of Fame lost over $2 million last year. We all know accounts can manipulate numbers for their purposes.

        But outside of donated artifacts I wonder how much money MLB gives to the Hall of Fame? Two million is really not much money in the grand scheme of things for MLB.

        Off topic but I have heard criticism from people that the HOF does not do enough to protect the items in their collection. There are stories of missing/stolen items that the HOF is accused of not diligently trying to recover.

        I guess it goes back to the public image. Publicizing missing items would only discourage future donations of artifacts.

      • markfrednubble - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:06 PM

        I do know the Hall is a surprisingly small operation (people, budget, etc.) given how we perceive their stature. It would seem like MLB should provide the financial support they need if they’re losing money, but it’s hard to assert that without knowing their capital structure. I never heard anything about missing items but I know people who have been able to tour their archives and they have a ton of amazing stuff that is not on public display at any given time.

  7. b453841l - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    I thought I saw Pete Rose on TV the other day, but it was just Quentin Tarantino talking about “D’jango Unchained.” Needless to say, he didn’t look very good.

  8. charlutes - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    Pete Rose is a legend, u suck Craig

    • slappymcknucklepunch - Jan 10, 2013 at 5:13 PM

      Hardball talk was a legend before you showed up,you suck x infinity,stampsies,no erases suck a bag of dehydrated fuck…

  9. umrguy42 - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

    Tangentially related, and I asked this before, but don’t think I got a response – how do *managers* get elected to the Hall?

    • raysfan1 - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:47 PM

      Managers are elected by the veterans committe. They have to have been active for at least 10 years and retired for 5, or at least 6 months if they are age 65 or older.

  10. DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:15 PM

    “And just for the record, let me reiterate my Pete Rose stance: I think he should still be banned from holding baseball operations positions, from scout, to couch to manager to front office, because I think his judgment and lack of appreciation for baseball’s rules represent a risk to the game. But I do think he should be allowed to work in baseball in an ambassador/fan relations/philanthropic/whatever kind of role, and I do think he should be in the Hall of Fame as a player because he was a hell of a player.”

    Completely agree on all of those points.

    And it is also worth noting – they changed the ruled on Hall Eligibility AFTER his banishment. Though 29 people are going to reply and claim otherwise

    • The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

      While that may be accurate, I have a hard time believing Rose took that into account when deciding if he’d gamble on baseball.

      “Well, I’ll get kicked out of the sport forever, but at least I won’t be automatically ineligible for the Hall of Fame. Go ahead and place the bet.”

      That said, I don’t see any reason he shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame. He belongs, and it would probably also make his place in baseball history a lot clearer. Though thanks to this year’s results, he’s certainly not the best eligible player who isn’t in the hall anymore.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

        Actually, if you go back and read the accounts, Pete firmly believed he would be re-instated a year later. And there are those (I am not one of them) who believe that Bart Giamatti had privately told him he would be re-instated in a year – Giammatti, of course, died 8 days later. There are also those who believe (and I AM on of them) that Fay Vincent so was convinced that the Rose affair brought on Giamatti’s heart attack that he decided to do whatever he could to stick it to Rose.

        But I digress… main point is that traditionally rule changes affect people going forwarded. Not syaing it was not in their right to do so if they chose, just saying it the whole thing was personal against Rose

  11. bulldog12b - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    Pete Rose is the best player not in the Hall of Fame! He played the game the right way… all in all the time. In the 1970 All Star game, he took out catcher Ray Fosse. It was an exhibition game but Pete hated to lose. I would rather have 25 Pete Rose’s on my roster than 99% of the selfish crybabies playing the game today!

    • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

      Nothing says wanting to win like penciling in your own name in a selfish quest to set a record.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM

        A) Pete Rose had 4,062 hits playing for other managers
        B) At the time he broke Cobbs record he managed 177 games – and sat himself in 55 of those
        C) His average as a Player/Manager at that point was .289

    • markfrednubble - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:57 PM

      OK, Pete Rose was Charlie Hustle and played the game with tremendous intensity and energy. But don’t say he was unselfish.

      I distinctly remember when he was going for the consecutive-game hitting streak record. Rose was in the mid 40s, less than two weeks away from DiMaggio’s 56. Every game was national attention, every at-bat was a big deal. His team was also in a pennant race, needing to win almost every night. The night his streak ended, the Reds lost a tight game. In his postgame interview, I remember sound bites from Johnny Bench and others about how painful it was to lose that game. Rose never mentioned losing a critical game. Instead he whined about the opposing reliever throwing hard and trying to strike him out in the ninth inning, as though he was entitled to a meatball so he could extend his streak.

      That changed my opinion of him. Baseball is one sport where a great player can be somewhat selfish, because it’s a series of one-on-one battles. I always thought that side of Rose’s personality played a role in the destructive, egotistical decisions he made later as a manager.

      • thomas2727 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM

        Somebody can correct me if I am wrong. But the game the 44 game hitting streak ended the Reds lost something like 18-2.

        The pitcher was Gene Garber. In the 9th inning he was throwing Rose pitches a foot off the plate knowing Rose would not want to walk. Rose of course struckout on a pitch probably a foot outside and Garber’s celebration rivaled that of a pitcher that just struck out a hitter for the last out of a World Series.

      • markfrednubble - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

        Good memory, thomas. Braves won 16-4 that night, close game until the 5th. Garber got the save because he pitched the last 3 innings. So my memory was wrong on the close game part, which excuses Pete somewhat for not dwelling on the loss. But he complained that Garber was pitching to him “like it was the 7th game of the World Series,” to which Garber responded that he tries to pitch every game like it’s the World Series.

        What I still don’t like is Rose inferring that opponents should try less hard to get him out because of the streak.

  12. kevinbnyc - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

    Someone sounding reasonable on Fox News?? Now THAT’S the real story.

  13. barrywhererufrom - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM

    MSLSD..a credible source of news? Keep on blasting Fox News as more and more people watch that network than CNN, MSNBC combined!! I know that it bothers you liberals and lovers of Obama. But just like Pete Rose should be banned from Baseball you should be banned from your biased political commentary!

    • stex52 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

      Barry! Back? You know, if you show yourself the secret police can reactivate that trace on you.

      Better go back into hiding.

      • barrywhererufrom - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM

        Dude ,stating that the obvious that Fox has more viewers than CNN or MSLSD is delusional? Just like a liberal can’t argue facts so they make stuff up about you. I have to say you have a real credible source of news when you have a ‘reporter’ like Chris Matthews at LSD who was thankful for a Hurricane that killed and devasted communities because it helped the president he wanted to get now who should the police be looking for :)

      • stex52 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM

        Actually, I never said I liked any of the cable channels. None of them does news that you can’t get somewhere else. You go to the cables for commentary.

        And I don’t.

      • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM

        OMFG! A guy with the screen name “barrywhereufrom” is bitching about people making stuff up! He is literally having a non tongue-in-cheek handwringing about “Liberals” making stuff up all the while going around with a screen name that is, and I can hardly believe this is so, “barrywhereufrom”! Oh LORD! The delicious, DELICIOUS irony of it! I may not get over this one for some time…

        Please, PLEASE “Barry” keep on with this vein. I need the distraction right now and you are BEYOND amusing.

    • bigharold - Jan 10, 2013 at 9:56 PM

      “Keep on blasting Fox News as more and more people watch that network than CNN, MSNBC combined!! ”

      So, .. more people watch American Idol than Masterpiece Theater, .. doesn’t make American Idol “better”.

      But, remember views or not it’s Faux not Facts News!

  14. buggieowens - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM

    Yes, Fox has a conservative bias and, yes, MSNBC has a liberal bias. But that is superficial. Dig deeper and you see both have a corporate bias. Picking on Fox is too easy…like taking candy from a (heavily-armed) baby. But about MSNBC…how many anti-nuclear power stories did you see in the past on supposedly liberal MSNBC (at least then, part of the GE empire)? Many people fall into listening to screaming idiots on both sides of the aisle. But they miss the deeper significance of the greater control of the media to a small number of companies…But I digress…Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame.

    • 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:38 PM

      I would think taking candy from a heavily armed baby would be a terribly difficult task.

      • term3186 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:52 PM

        it’s very dangerous. Just ask Mr. Burns.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:22 PM

        Mr. Burns didn’t know the baby was armed!

    • barrywhererufrom - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM

      buggieowens..who is Richard Immulet? Oh your forgot to mention the CEO of GE is on Obama’s economic committe and he meets with him regulary. I can see no conflict of interest there..just let me know when they have that report about Benghazi or any other topic that Obama has screwed up on..,

      • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM

        Yes “Barry”! You TELL ’em, kid. Make ’em produce those documents like Bush did for WMDs and expose CIA people like Valerie Plame. But better prove how virtuous you are before you go too much further, eh kid? Best establish those bona fides of your own and find those documents showing your president ISN’T an American born citizen like your handle suggests. You have those, right? Of course you do. Of course. Right. Just check with Rupert Murdock: I’m sure that in between being sued and hauled up on charges for phone tapping he’ll have time to find those documents for you. THEN you’ll have the moral leg to stand on when you produce some ACTAUL EVIDENCE that demonstrates your president is “covering up” something in Benghazi. As opposed to being some random nut-job, I mean. No one would want people to think they were some random nut job, right?

      • buggieowens - Jan 10, 2013 at 5:19 PM

        Wow…lot of ignorance for me to unpack in such a short amount of time. Looks like Cur already did the heavy lifting for me.

      • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM

        Oh so NOW you find the “reply” button, eh? You slippery ole dog! Your boy “Barry” sure has a wily ole man. Hope he comes up just like ya.

  15. markfrednubble - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    I have a question for you guys: If you draw the line after Pete Rose’s playing career and say he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame as a player because he presumably didn’t start cheating until after he was retired as a player, and therefore his playing numbers are untainted and legitimate, do you also draw the line in the middle of Bonds’ and Clemens’ playing careers and believe they should be inducted because they piled up HOF-caliber careers before they allegedly started juicing?

    I am curious if you guys see the two situations the same way.

  16. aceshigh11 - Jan 10, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    To be fair…Rose only sounded reasonable BECAUSE he was on Fox News.

    It’s a sliding scale over there…

  17. barrywhererufrom - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    cur68..just like a liberal to jump to conclusion that my name has anything to do with being a birther..are you kidding me? My son’s name is Barry and he is always asking where I am from. So now keep on believing the MSLSD propaganda that Obama is doing a great job as president. I know 7.8 unemployment, your taxes going up, debt at the 16 trillion dollar level is doing a great me a favor argue facts..How do you feel about a Vice President who sells a cable network to Al Jareeza – a network that is sympathetic to al qaeda..did mslsd have a report about that? How about the story of the mastermind of the WTC bombing in 93, Sheik Abdul Rakhman, was asked by the President of Egypt (a Muslim Brotherhood member )to be released..and president nothingness did say no…keep on watching as our country goes further into the shitter..

    • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM

      Ha, ha! GOOD ONE! Your “son”! wink. Riiiiiiiiiight. Hi “Barry”. Was Santa good to you this year?

      ps: I AM CANADIAN & I could give a shit about your two-bit excuse. You made it up, like you make up all the rest of your drivel. Oh! I see drivel continues below…

      pps: notice how I use the “reply” button? This so you can see my replies as opposed to trying to hide them on the page and giving the illusion of replying all the while ducking and running with some balderdash smokescreen about your “son”. QUICK! Show me his birth certificate!

      • barrywhererufrom - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM

        Cur68 believe what you like..once again you never answer my points..keep up the periphel bs argument..Being a Canadien I am thinking why am i even wasting my time with you anyway. Your a Socialist and you love Obama..what is your tax rate in Canada? How long does it take you to see a Doctor? You got your guy to make the US weak like Canada

      • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:55 PM

        Saw my doc today. Cost me nothing. Took a half hour.
        Still got no proof, eh Barry’s Dad? Well, at least you learned where the reply button was. Cheers, Homes.

  18. barrywhererufrom - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    cur68 cont..Dude you think having your POTUS going out on a day after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and saying it was a demonstration is not being lied to is absurb. Especially when the POTUS watched in real time and knew that our people who perished called for help. Also he continued to send Susan Rice out to the talk shows to keep the lie going. Now wonder she dropped out for consideration of being Secretary of State..the truth would come out. And when Hillary finally gets better she will have to testify and will find out more of the coverup. I know your lack of knowledge i is based on you watching MSNBC.. This is a big part of the problem when you get your news from a biased source that will do anything to protect this president. You never get the keep on believing their bullshit. You are just one of the many who believe anything that comes out their lying wonder we are in the state that we are in as a nation!

    • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:45 PM

      Hi “Barry”. Or “Barry’s Dad” or whatever. I asked for some evidence of “cover up”. Not more drivel. Get back to me with that please. Give “Barry” a hug from all of us “liberals” here.

      PS: I’m Canadian. I get my news from the CBC. They don’t have ANY evidence of a cover up and if they did they would LOVE to rip your country a new ass for it.

      • barrywhererufrom - Jan 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        Evidence..did you read my prior posts? Did you see that Obama went on talk shows after the attack and said that is from a movie? Did you see that Obama had his UN Secretary Rice go on the talk show circut and say it was from a movie..this all happened after Obama saw the attack happening in real time..who brings RPG’s to a spontanous attack? Glad to hear the CBC is upholding the values of investigative journalism..thank God for Fox News if it wasn’t for them we would never know what the hell is going on with the Obama adminstration.

      • cur68 - Jan 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

        Funny how 2 people can see the same thing and come to exactly opposite conclusions. Keep trying “Barry’s Dad”.

  19. rvnc - Jan 10, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame…the WWE Hall of Fame……….

    I’ll get my coat.

  20. hushbrother - Jan 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM

    Here, here.

  21. schmedley69 - Jan 10, 2013 at 8:29 PM

    Pete deserves to be in more than any of the juicers. Loved watching that guy play.

    • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 9:22 PM

      I loved watching Clemens and Bonds play. And their careers tower over Rose’s. Why does Rose deserve to be in more than those two?

      • schmedley69 - Jan 11, 2013 at 6:57 PM

        Because Pete’s stats weren’t chemically enhanced. What would have his stats looked like if he was juiced?

  22. zipsports - Jan 11, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    I absolutely, totally, agree with your last paragraph. Keep him out of the game, but the all-time hits leader should be in the hall of fame.

  23. jimeejohnson - Jan 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

    Wal-Mart and Fox News: proof that there will always be more stupid than smart people

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (3156)
  2. G. Stanton (2562)
  3. M. Teixeira (2481)
  4. H. Olivera (2404)
  5. Y. Cespedes (2386)
  1. J. Fernandez (2357)
  2. K. Medlen (2181)
  3. Y. Puig (2129)
  4. G. Perkins (2085)
  5. J. Eickhoff (2059)