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.
But they can't undo recorded game play from one of the greats. They can't just say player "X" never existed.
Pete Rose should be mentioned in the Hall of Fame. Not necessarily in a positive light, and not with any ceremonial induction (even if he's alive when his mention is put in there). After all, someone has to have been on record playing his position in the games he was in.
Alternatively, someone could see if they could sublet out some space from a building next to or near the Hall of Fame. Even if not the official Hall of Fame refused to acknowledge the Pete Rose exhibit, those who wanted to could still see it; I suspect there are enough Pete Rose supporters to maintain a small display.
He's a cheat. It's a fact.
I'm sorry my pointing that out bothers you.
I'm sooooo judgemental.
Have a nice non-judgemental day.
There's a lot of truth in that statement. But, if the one betting on the game is one of the ones playing the game, the whole system falls apart.
This whole discussion is whether Rose should be permitted to have his name submitted to the baseball writers for possible induction to the HOF. Induction would be the inclusion of a bronze plaque hanging in a wing of the building with baseball's notables. It will not repair any of Rose's shortcomings.
I followed with great fondness Rose's career. But, unfortunately, he crossed the line. The evidence against him was overwhelming. There has been no credible refutation of the evidence gathered and shared publicly. No evidence has been submitted by him, or those on his behalf. He chose not to contest it before Commissioner Giamatti, and voluntarily accepted a lifetime suspension by being put on the inelgible list.
I seem to recall that Willie Mays had a similar problem after he retired. He associated with gamblers and Vegas interests. He was asked to disassociate from those individuals and interests. He did so. Rose had an opportunity to do the same. He did not. So, my assessment for Rose is that "a deal is a deal." He should have stood and fought at that time rather than let the evidence trail grow 13 years old.
His intransigence in addressing his errors is intolerable. My memory is that other than his friend Joe Morgan, other HOFers oppose his name being put on a ballot. Two come to mind: Al Kaline and Johnny Bench (a former teammate of Rose).
His is indeed a sad circumstance. I wish him the best, but he should not be removed from the ineligible list even if he shows contrition. But, of course he will never express remorse. This situation has allowed me to have meaningful discussions with my 15 year old son.
Gwjack
The precedent for this should be the Hornung/Karras incident. The NFL was smart enough to recognize that crucifying two of it's biggest stars would be bad for the game. The two were punished and then they were allowed back.
Can you reference another "lifetime offense" that was forgiven? Was there one?
Any such shrine would have to be sponsored entirely by voluntary donations, and make donors and visitors fully aware that it was neither sponsored by, nor endorsed by, Major League Baseball.
Provided those conditions were met, though, I'm not sure how Major League Baseball could effectively react; I don't think they'd have a meaningful trademark case (because of the explicit statements of non-endorsement) or could use other methods to shut the 'shrine' down. The real test for the shrine would be whether or not people took enough interest to make it worthwhile.
I find it interesting that the non-judemental person so non-judgmentally labled you as someone who hates everything based upon one comment. (See my above comment about sports causing irrationality).
Into what category of copyrightable material does a baseball game fall? What about film, video, and audio transcriptions?
Under U.S. copyright law, musical phonorecords do not have performance rights associated with them; if you wish to charge admission for people to listen to your copy of Bob Smith and his orchestra playing a piece of music written by Fred Jones, you would have to pay royalties to Fred Jones, but not to Bob Smith. Since a baseball game isn't a musical performance, however, I don't know what the rules would be except to note that, in general, bars are allowed to show games on TV without payment to (or permission from) Major League Baseball provided they don't charge admission and certain other conditions are met.
On a related note, there is some to-do in Chicago between the Cubs and neighboring bars that sell seats on their rooftops. The Cubs are claiming that these bar owners are violating their inherent copyright in their games. The only way the Cubs would have a point would be if the bar was charging admission to get into an area in which the game was shown on TV or a radiocast was played. My guess is that the bars probably do that currently, but could get around that by selling people cheap radios with which to listen to the game (with the people--not the bar--owning all the radios).
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.