Keep the Ban on Pete Rose

The New York Times ^ | 12/21/2002 (for editions of 12/22/2002)

[supercat]

But as future generations pass into oblivion the records broken and ferocity of game play that was "Pete Rose" can never be denied as having happened. They can name him player "X", they can black out his face and his number, and they can do all of that with ease of mind because of Mr. Rose's breaking of the rules.

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.

[GOP_Raider]

"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."

Sort of like the purpose of income tax is to give government to waste time and energy with.

[dead]

I don't hate Pete Rose.

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.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

The PURPOSE of professional sports is to give the gambling industry something to bet on.

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.

[AngryOne]

What??? Race has nothing to do with it?? Are you mad?? Of course race has everything to do with it. Why else would John Rocker be suspended and traded for comments to a magazine when Allen Iverson can record an album that said far worse? Rose gets suspended (rightly) and others smoke crack, weed, coke, and commit domestic violence and are still allowed to play? Dude... whatever... nothing to do with race?

Go tell that to Trent Lott.

[ErnBatavia]

Petey admitted everything in your first three paragraphs; his "I'm a victim" mode was merely the next step for him, so the denials began. If we were being polled, I'd say good riddance to him.

[gwjack]

When my family and I visited Cooperstown 3 years ago we went to the HOF. Rose's stats and some of his memorabilia were displayed in the museum. Interesting aside that the museum also displayed some of "Shoeless" Joe, Cicotte, and other Black Sox players.

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

[JoeSixPack1]

I agree. But MLB will never let a loose nickel out of their grasp so an alternative shrine to Rose would be immediately answered with either a lawsuit or the HOF finally inducting him if for nothing else than to prevent anyone but MLB & HOF to benefit from his years in the league.

[yooper]

When MLB stops using juiced balls, and when MLB stops allowing people like Mark McGwire to take anabolic steroids which allow McGwire to hit many more home runs than he could have without them, then MLB can consider Rose to be 'a cheat'.

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.

[river rat]

If memory serves.....

Hornig and Karras both admitted guilt...paid heavy penalties, were never suspected of betting against themselves - and were not Team Managers...

Am I mistaken?
Semper Fi

[xzins]

This is bull.

Reinstate the guy.

Far worse crimes than his hurting baseball these days. Strikes, steroids, drug addicts, abusers, rapists.... gimmeabreak.

[JoeSixPack1]

The two were punished and then they were allowed back.

Can you reference another "lifetime offense" that was forgiven? Was there one?

[John Lenin]

Let him in when he dies,

[supercat]

I agree. But MLB will never let a loose nickel out of their grasp so an alternative shrine to Rose would be immediately answered with either a lawsuit or the HOF finally inducting him if for nothing else than to prevent anyone but MLB & HOF to benefit from his years in the league.

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.

[JoeSixPack1]

hey, Semper Fi, Grunt! :-)

[JoeSixPack1]

I assumed as much earlier, but MLB has the rights to all the games he was ever in, all the sponsoral deeds to his equipment, etc., what's left that could be used?

[Rodney King]

I'm with you. Half of the reason why I have lost interest in sports as an adult is that it turns so many otherwise rational people into irrational boobs - like some on this thread. The fact that Pete Rose was a great player is not justification for people to lose sight of their mental faculties. The guy agreed to his lifetime ban. Given that, how can anyone possibly think that he is innocent? It's the same damn thing as Jonathon Pollard. Accept the plea bargain, thus ending the need for a trail or its MLB equivalent - and then years later whine that nothing was ever proven at trial or its MLB equivalent.

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).

[RGSpincich]

Baseball didn't forgive Shoeless Joe Jackson. Pete Rose should have learned from Jackson's mistake. Me and Ray Fosse say "screw him".

[supercat]

I assumed as much earlier, but MLB has the rights to all the games he was ever in, all the sponsoral deeds to his equipment, etc., what's left that could be used?

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).

[thurules]

Please produce ALL of your evidence that Peter Edward Rose is a cheat.
Hint: You got nothing. I am waiting....Oh, pardon me D-Strawberry just invited me to the backroom to smoke some crack. Be back in just a sec...
Yep, DARYLL confirms that Pete Rose is a cheat.
Mets Fans. Always the Bridesmade....