Posted on 12/14/2015 4:00:06 PM PST by Beave Meister
It was a metaphor for all to see on this fall's World Series pre- and postgame shows. An outcast for more than a quarter-century, Pete Rose appeared as a Fox Sports TV analyst -- on a set outside the stadium.
Now Rose, 74, will remain officially on the outs for the foreseeable future, following Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred's denial on Monday of Rose's bid for reinstatement, 26 years after his lifetime ban based on evidence that he had gambled on the sport -- and on his own team -- as manager of the Cincinnati Reds.
Manfred's ruling is the latest consequence of what even some supporters of the Hit King have characterized as Rose's consistent inability to pursue a path to redemption and return since the MLB investigation initiated by commissioner Peter Ueberroth documented his repeated violations of Rule 21. That rule is the prohibition against betting, posted prominently in every big league clubhouse.
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
Traditionally, “Cooperstown” is capitalized.
dick
The main problem with this argument is that Rose only bet on SOME of his team's games, which means he would have had different incentives in some games than others. For example, if he had money on a game, he might be quicker to pull his starting pitcher and burn through his bullpen; the flip side is that in games that he did not bet on, he might leave a starting pitcher in longer (preserving his bullpen for the next game). Even betting on his own team, particularly not every game, calls into question the integrity of the game.
Well, he can’t right his wrongs, exactly, but if he wanted to demonstrate that he has changed his ways, he might want to....well....stop gambling on baseball. And stop lying about gambling on baseball.
Well, he can’t right his wrongs, exactly, but if he wanted to demonstrate that he has changed his ways, he might want to....well....stop gambling on baseball. And stop lying about gambling on baseball.
He is no longer a player or manager. He is John Q Public and betting on baseball is ok for John Q Public.
Now if they want to make that a condition for his getting into the hall of fame, sure. But no one has said that. At least I have never heard about it.
Unless you’re Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle
Barred From Baseball: Rose Is Most Famous, but He Is Far From Alone
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/sports/baseball/others-banned-by-major-league-baseball.html?_r=0
Bans for doing something while they are in the game? Sure. After? That is stupid.
And apparently at least one commissioner agrees with me.
Yea I thought banning Willie Mays was an atrocity at the time.
That’s a good point.
Freegards
I was at the game where he smacked Bud Harrelson. It was nuts.
On the ride home, the subway (aboveway) was filled with fans proudly displaying stadium seating and field sod. I was about 10. My poor mom was petrified.
Pete Rose needs forgiveness. There is no doubt that he gambled on baseball. There is proof that he gambled as a manager and at the end of his career as a player/manager. Those player/manager years didn’t yield much regarding Rose’s records. If anything, they were a statistical drag on them.
This article seems to say that the justice of Rose’s ban from baseball lies in his unwillingness to come totally clean. I don’t believe that. I think Rose could have confessed to everything he’d done wrong from childhood, and it wouldn’t have mattered. Rose was not forgiven because baseball dug its heels in, and all commissioners since did not want to look like the weak link. So be it. Destiny...his and theirs.
The hypocrisy of baseball remains, though. They still list him as the hits leader, and they still list him as having the most 200 hits seasons and a huge list of other records. They haven’t withdrawn the World Series crowns of Cincy and Philly from their Rose eras. They keep his pictures, they keep his footage, and they invoke his name when it is convenient for them.
So, when they figure out how his gambling enabled him to hit off of an opposing pitcher 4,256 times, that’s when I’ll believe that the player should be banned. Ban the manager/coach and not the player. It’s not like he’s going to get drafted in his mid-70’s.
” if PR would have been born black he would have been a ok and in the HOF”
FACT
. . . if I were commissioner I would have decided in Jackson and Roses favor. They didn't murder anybody.No, and the "they didn't murder anybody" argument is one of innumerable arguments that would be considered incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial if this were a court cast.
But a) Jackson, who was probably more dumb than dishonest, took a $5,000 payoff. Right then and there no matter that he may have tried to return or dispose of it the following morning he became culpable in the 1919 World Series fix; and, b) the disclosure of the Michael Bertolini notebooks last summer---in which notes were kept regarding Rose's betting while he was still a player including on his own team, one way or the other---put paid to his case once and for all.
Apparently in the eyes of the commissioner punishments for gambling must go on until death and after.
No, they go on in the eyes of Rule 21(d). Which, by the way, says "permanent," not "lifetime."
A lifetime ban, means what is says.It is not a "lifetime" ban, it is a permanent ban. Says who? Says the plain language of Rule 21(d).
I don’t like what MLB is doing getting involved and making money off of online gambling with the recent deal they struck with Draftkings. Kind of hypocritical.I've seen that argument offered over the past few days, and it's understandable why. But it's also not hypocritical.
Baseball sponsors a good many things that wouldn't be allowed by its employees during games. Unless you've seen Bryce Harper quaff a Budweiser in the outfield or run the bases behind the wheel of a Chevrolet or try selling Aflac insurance to his first base coach after ripping a base hit, that is.
A fan betting on a game online doesn't offer anywhere near the same prospective impact that a player, coach, manager, or even umpire involved in the game would present betting on the same game.
Even betting on his own team, particularly not every game, calls into question the integrity of the game.The most recent revelations include that there were days Rose wouldn't bet on the Reds when certain pitchers were starting. That may not seem like anything until one factors in that on such days it sent signals to other gamblers not to bet on the Reds to win.
You are correct the rule says permanent, and that is not the same as a lifetime ban.
I have no love for Pete Rose. I do have much respect for his effort while he was a player. They didn’t call him Charlie Hustle for nothing.
His records in the HoF are still posted as they should be.
He was banned permanently for a fundamental failure of character, and I also understand his contribution to the game. Does one overcome the other.....probably not.
There is no doubt that him betting on or against, or not betting at all could easily send coded messages to the bookmakers about the likely results of a game that Rose was involved in. This is profoundly bad and he should face the consequences of his actions.
Induct him into the Hall of Fame? This entire question is better suited for when Rose is dead. Let him pay his debt to baseball in full.
Until Rose, Bonds, McGuire, etc are added to the HOF, I have absolutely zero respect for it. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t exist.
He was banned permanently for a fundamental failure of character, and I also understand his contribution to the game. Does one overcome the other.....probably not.Pete Rose isn't banished from baseball because of a character flaw, because he's less than a sterling person. He's banished because he broke the rules. People of absolutely upstanding character have broken rules in all walks of professional life and, where appropriate, have paid a penalty for it.
The rules Rose broke were codified after the scandal involving the 1919 World Series, but Shoeless Joe Jackson---who by most accounts was a good person, more dumb than dishonest regarding the World Series fix (from all credible accounts White Sox infielders Swede Risberg and Chick Gandil were the masterminds of the fix)---wasn't banished because he was a terrible person, he was banished because he took money amidst the World Series fix.
And the question of the Hall of Fame is moot because the Hall itself---which was perfectly within its rights to do so, since it is a separate official entity from baseball government and a baseball commissioner has no direct authority to decide Hall of Fame rules one way or another---enacted a rule in 1991 that stated no one on baseball's permanently ineligible list could be eligible to stand for election to the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose could be ten centuries dead and unless he's removed from the permanently ineligible list or the Hall changes its rule, he won't go into the Hall of Fame.
If the Hall wishes to change that rule, it's perfectly free to do so, and good luck waiting for it to do so while we're at it.
Rose has been facing the consequences of his actions for over a quarter century now. It hasn't been pretty.
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.