Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Pete Rose under fire, this time for...
Quote | Reply
... Statutory rape in the 70s

https://www.si.com/...cused-statutory-rape




It looks like the claim was discovered in court when Pete is suing someone else for defamation. It can't be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations. Pete doesn't seem to be denying it. Still, for Charlie Hustle, the hits just seem to keep coming.






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Stay classy, Pete!

(signed, a former fan who once, with the rest of his Little League team, watched Pete Rose play at Riverfront)
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey now, he thought she was 18. Besides, the defamation alleged said he was banging 12 - 14 year olds, not 16 year olds.

So much for that reinstatement ever being a thing.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
Hey now, he thought she was 18. Besides, the defamation alleged said he was banging 12 - 14 year olds, not 16 year olds.

So much for that reinstatement ever being a thing.

I like how they are quibbling over which state it occurred in since 16 was legal in Ohio.

As if the problem here is whether it was legal or not.
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
Hey now, he thought she was 18. Besides, the defamation alleged said he was banging 12 - 14 year olds, not 16 year olds.

So much for that reinstatement ever being a thing.


What I heard this morning was he was alleging she was 16 not 12-14.

He is supposed to be entered into the Phillies HOF or wall of fame soon. I wonder how it will impact that.

ETA

From ESPN: "Rose acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with the woman in court documents made public Monday, but he said his information and belief was that it started when she was 16."

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "
Last edited by: Leddy: Aug 1, 17 7:22
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [Leddy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Leddy wrote:
j p o wrote:
Hey now, he thought she was 18. Besides, the defamation alleged said he was banging 12 - 14 year olds, not 16 year olds.

So much for that reinstatement ever being a thing.


What I heard this morning was he was alleging she was 16 not 12-14.

He is supposed to be entered into the Phillies HOF or wall of fame soon. I wonder how it will impact that.

ETA

From ESPN: "Rose acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with the woman in court documents made public Monday, but he said his information and belief was that it started when she was 16."

See, this is why you don't sue for defamation when you are a sleaze bag, all the 16 year olds you used to bang when you were 25 - 40 come back to haunt you.

And another actual thing he has to overcome, is it actually possible to further damage Pete Rose's reputation?

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This whole issue is resurrected because Pete is suing Dowd for defamation. If any of this was true, do you really think he would've brought a lawsuit?

I miss YaHey
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [justgeorge] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
justgeorge wrote:
This whole issue is resurrected because Pete is suing Dowd for defamation. If any of this was true, do you really think he would've brought a lawsuit?

You are at least passably familiar with his prior body of work, no?

He admits to having sex with her. He just thought she was old enough. And by 'old enough' he means 16. BTW, he would have been 34 at the time.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
justgeorge wrote:
This whole issue is resurrected because Pete is suing Dowd for defamation. If any of this was true, do you really think he would've brought a lawsuit?

You are at least passably familiar with his prior body of work, no?

He admits to having sex with her. He just thought she was old enough. And by 'old enough' he means 16. BTW, he would have been 34 at the time.

I'm aware he would lie when the truth would save him. But why would he bring this scrutiny on himself?

And if there was truth to it, why wasn't investigating more back then?

I miss YaHey
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [justgeorge] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
justgeorge wrote:
j p o wrote:
justgeorge wrote:
This whole issue is resurrected because Pete is suing Dowd for defamation. If any of this was true, do you really think he would've brought a lawsuit?

You are at least passably familiar with his prior body of work, no?

He admits to having sex with her. He just thought she was old enough. And by 'old enough' he means 16. BTW, he would have been 34 at the time.

I'm aware he would lie when the truth would save him. But why would he bring this scrutiny on himself?

And if there was truth to it, why wasn't investigating more back then?

What do you think isn't true? The only question appears to be whether he did it in a state where it was illegal at the time.
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
He admits to having sex with her. He just thought she was old enough. And by 'old enough' he means 16. BTW, he would have been 34 at the time.

Also, married with 6 and 11 year old kids at home.

I have no sympathy for him. He's so flawed it's beyond tragic, and now it's just pathetic.
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [Leddy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He is supposed to be entered into the Phillies HOF or wall of fame soon. I wonder how it will impact that.
---

This just in- the Phillies are canceling Pete Rose night. No Pete on the Wall. No Pete Bobblehead. If you want to exchange your ticket because you really wanted to see the ceremonies, they'll allow that.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/...ape-allegations.html






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I saw the bobble head cancellation and he will not be participating in the ceremonies. But will they still induct him to the wall? I have seen mentioned several times he won't be there but nothing specifically says he won't be inducted.
'
"While I am truly honored that the Phillies fans voted for me to be this year's Wall of Fame inductee, I am concerned that other matters will overshadow the goodwill associated with Alumni Weekend, and I agree with the decision not to participate," Rose said in a statement.'

http://www.espn.com/...e-recent-allegations

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "
Quote Reply
Re: Pete Rose under fire, this time for... [Leddy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Never mind, I think I found an article saying his induction is canceled.

http://www.csnphilly.com/...ory-rape-allegations

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "
Quote Reply