Posted on 12/21/2002 3:29:19 PM PST by GeneD
In 1989, Major League Baseball banished Pete Rose for life. A lengthy investigation had persuaded A. Bartlett Giamatti, then baseball's commissioner, that Mr. Rose had recklessly violated major league rules by betting on baseball games, including 51 games played by the Cincinnati Reds, the team Mr. Rose managed. It was the right decision then, and should not be overturned now.
Last month Mr. Rose met privately with the present commissioner, Bud Selig, inspiring speculation that the 13-year ban might be lifted to allow Mr. Rose to rejoin the game in some fashion, perhaps as a manager. That would be a terrible mistake, largely because it would send a terrible message. As another former commissioner, Fay Vincent, recently noted, gambling is "baseball's capital crime." To reinstate Mr. Rose would fatally weaken the deterrent that best fits that crime, lifetime banishment.
Many people argue that Mr. Rose has already paid his debt, that "13 years in enough." On some level, of course, we'd all like to see Mr. Rose rehabilitated and forgiven. But he has shown no particular remorse and has never admitted to betting on games. And even if he did confess, the ban should remain. Nobody should be encouraged to think that he can trifle with a fundamental obligation and escape permanent sanction.
On the related question of Mr. Rose's eligibility for baseball's Hall of Fame, there is room for more flexibility. Under present rules, any person on baseball's ineligible list cannot be considered for election. Judged by his record alone, Mr. Rose, whose 4,256 career hits are a major league record, clearly deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Mr. Selig would not be amiss in suggesting that Mr. Rose be made eligible — with two firm conditions. First, Mr. Rose must make a full confession about his gambling. Second, any plaque in Cooperstown commemorating his remarkable athletic achievements must also take note of the darker side of his career.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Pretty obscure testiment to the final ruling.
Did Rose bet on baseball? Examination of the inquest done in 1988-1989 will show the deficiencies in that report.
Did Rose give a black-eye to baseball? No more so than the strike did, and not with the same effect as the strike did.
Rose has maintained his innocence since the begining, and a re-examiniation of the circumstances around the first report might just vindicate him.
The issue of whether he bet against his own team is moot.
He bet on his team, and that's enough.
If a manager bets on his team in one game, and not on his team in the next, his decisions will be affected. He'll burn out his best reliever to win the game he has money on. He'll play a player who should be rested to win the game he has money on.
Give him a plaque in the Hall of Fame that tells his whole story, as a lesson to future cheats. But letting him have any part of the current game is insane.
(Plus, in case anybody hasn't noticed, he's a complete scumbag and idiot to boot. The guy sold his "MVP ring" about nineteen times!)
I wonder why that is?
Pete Rose was always a favorite of mine, and no one ever played the game harder or wanted to win more than he did. I think that if a compromise could be reached, wherein he admits having bet on baseball games (assuming he never bet against his own team), he should be allowed to be voted on for the Hall of Fame.
Well I'll tell you why that is.
Without getting into the merits of banning or not banning those individuals, the fact of the matter is that if some guy beats his wife, or smokes crack, or has sex with a sixteen year old girl, he's a bad guy. A scumbag. The law will deal with him, but the integrity of the game is not threatened.
If players and managers gamble on their sport, who the hell will ever watch that sport again? You can debate how much the personal lives (and sins) of players should affect their eligibility, but gambling on their game (or even being involved with the world of gambling) directly affects the sport, its credibility, and therefore its marketability.
There can be no room in sports for cheats, like you and Pete.
Point well taken.
An innocent person would have fought. Rose didn't and he isn't.
"The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is the sad end of a sorry episode. One of the game's greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which have stained the game, and he must now live with the consequences of those acts. By choosing not to come to a hearing before me, and by choosing not to proffer any testimony or evidence contrary to the evidence and information contained in the report of the Special Counsel to the Commissioner, Mr. Rose has accepted baseball's ultimate sanction, lifetime ineligibility."
Statement by then Commissioner of Baseball
A. Bartlett Giamatti
August 24, 1989
WTF dead you starting your own personal religion, or is this the eleventh commandment? "thou shalt cheat" get over yourself man, the friggin' world was created to get over on, get yours, don't blink or it will br gone.
The PURPOSE of professional sports is to give the gambling industry something to bet on. Without the gambling industry, professional sports would not be able to pay players millions of dollars to play a child's game.
All this pretense that professional athletics is a holy pursuit and only lily-white people should be allowed to participate makes me gag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.