|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |
Reactions: Rambling Rose Users say Rose was treated unfairly, should be forgivenPosted: Monday October 25, 1999 12:31 PM
CNN/SI asked users to tell us what they thought about the Sunday night's faceoff between banned slugger Pete Rose and NBC's dogged Jim Gray. Users sided with Rose by an overwhelming margin, insisting that he should be forgiven for alleged gambling offenses which resulted in his lifetime ban from baseball ten years ago. A sampling of the most interesting responses follows:
It was in poor judgement that reporter Jim Gray decided to interrogate Pete Rose at an event that was a tribute to the men whose talents have become legendary in the sport of baseball. Good reporting requires good judgement! It is unfortunate that this reporter's zest to make a name for himself got in the way of recognizing that his audience-for a moment-was caught up in the greatness of these players. Perhaps he didn't notice the awe on the faces of the the younger players on the field or the standing ovation the spectators chose to give Pete Rose. Come on Jim! We just wanted to celebrate the sport. Why did you have to go and mar a once in a lifetime moment? It wasn't your moment; it was theirs and ours.
I do not think he was treated fairly, but do not feel that Rose should be allowed back in baseball. It was just a bad time for an interview like that, of all the players there, why interview him or just him. It took away from the ceremony and the game. The interview was very negative, with Jim Gray just trying to get something out of Rose he or any media will not ever get. There were many great players, many of whom I would have much preferred to hear in a interview than Rose. Rose is paying for his mistakes, He signed the lifetime ban and he should have to live with the consequences. He may of been a great player, but he hurt the game tremendously by doing what he done even if he will not own up to it.
I still feel that Rose deserves the right to be in the Hall of Fame. He had a great career on the field and even though Baseball unlike other major sports has the "character clause" I think that Rose has served his time and should be allowed into the Hall. I will say that Jim Grey's interview was out of line under the circumstances. Rose was just named and All Century Player and that type of badgering was not called for at that time.
Pete Rose was banned from the game he loves and has given his life too. It's been 10 years. If you or I were placed in the same position of signing the plea bargain and being assured that we'd be able to apply for reinstatement in a year I think we'd go for it too, even if we didn't commit the offense of cheating on baseball.
Grey's attack of Rose was good in a way because it brought the conflict to the boiling point. It is a black eye on baseball that they aren't treating one of its greatest players and managers with fairness and equity.
Jim Gray is more interested in drawing attention to himself than in conducting a fair, engaging and informative interview. He's been that way for years. I am not a Pete Rose fan, but Gray was way out of line.
Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. Jim Gray's interview with Pete just typified the type of person Gray is, classless. Pete's numbers on the field were overwhelming and everything he did for baseball while playing was positive. He had gambling problems as manager. He swears he didn't bet on baseball, but if he did he still deserves a chance to be in the Hall because of his on the field acts.
I think Mr. Gray showed a real lack of class. It wasn't the initial question so much as the way he kept picking at the wound. He's lucky Pete didn't loosen a few of his teeth.
Rose should not be readmitted to baseball until he admits he bet on baseball games. Even if he did, he should wait until he is voted in by the Old timers committee. Until he admits his guilt, he should remain disgraced.
Jim Gray's intentions were to humiliate Pete Rose, taking away his one last shining moment in baseball, in front of one of the largest viewed sporting events in the world. Pete Rose received the largest ovation of the evening. The fans voted him there; they knew what kind of player he was. Jim Gray, right from the start of the interview, began drilling questions to Pete Rose, to instigate an embarrassing confrontation. Nothing else was to be gained. He knew Pete Rose wasn't going to say, "Yeah Jim, I bet on baseball. Now will you tell that to Bud Selig so I can get into the Hall of Fame." Rose said he was surprised he was bombarding him with these questions on a night like this, and Jim Gray, needing to get in the last word, smirked and said, "I'm surprised you won't take this opportunity to admit you bet on baseball," and ended the interview. No doubt Jim Gray accomplished what he set out to do; embarrass and take away Pete Rose's one moment.
Disgraceful. Look ask Pete if he wanted discuss "the gambling issue". If he wanted to, great, go for it. But to get into that in the ambush mode on live TV? Another attempt by a poor interviewer to make a name for himself. He did. That name is fool.
I watched the bombardment with my wife. We both could not believe the way Jim Gray handled the situation. I feel this Jim Gray should be reprimanded for his actions. I certainly am going to voice my concerns to NBC, as well as many others, I bet will do! If I were Pete Rose, I would have laid Jim Gray out with one blow! He has my respect for keeping his composure. If Strawberry and Gooden can return after drug problems, which is definitely more serious then gambling; then Pete Rose should be eligible for a "second chance"! That is for sure.
The questions were fair, but the situation was poorly suited to them. Gray should have chosen a better situation to grill Pete Rose on the gambling issues. I was more interested in how Pete felt about receiving such an honor after a decade of forced abstinence from baseball.
Was [Rose] treated fairly last night? Absolutely without question. The ovation he received was well deserved. His efforts on the baseball diamond have earned him that honor. However, the questions posed to him by Jim Gray were also well deserved. He should address the issue of his gambling on the game of baseball. I do find it troubling that rather than being contrite he is so defensive. In the words of a great writer (who never had the pleasure of covering a baseball game) "Me thinks he protests too much!" I was a little put off by Charlie Hustle last night, and, remember, I am a Pete Rose fan. He seemed a little cocky and full of himself. I may be a little old fashioned, but in my opinion the truly great ones don't need to tell us they are great.
The interview was inexcusable. After 10 years, the issue should be dropped and Rose should be re-instated. If we are going to take this hard of a stance against Pete, then I want any professionally athlete who has ever been arrested on drug charges to be banned as well. I feel that what they did is just as bad if not worse than the whole Pete Rose thing.
On a night filled with so much greatness why in the world would you ambush a person the way that Jim Gray did Pete Rose? I went from having a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes to outrage. This is a prime example of what is wrong with journalism today. Remember Jenny Jones and her ambush of the guy on her show? Now it is in prime-time sports and during the World Series. Thanks, Jim Gray for ruining a perfect night.
You would think after how baseball fans treated Pete Rose by nominating him into the the All Century Team and by giving him the longest standing ovation, he would at least give a decent response or thank you in the televised NBC interview. Instead, his attitude clearly showed what a huge, huge mistake it was for us to put his name alongside the greats of Dimaggio, Williams, Ruth and so forth. He cheated the game of baseball, he cheated the fans and he cheated himself. Hey Pete, forget about Cooperstown!
|
