Posted on 11/22/2005 7:58:50 AM PST by cloud8
NEW YORK -- The Hall of Fame's doors will remain shut to Pete Rose, who won't appear on the baseball writers' ballot in his final year of eligibility.
Commissioner Bud Selig will not rule on Rose's application for reinstatement before the 2006 ballot is released Nov. 29, according to Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer.
Rose, who last year admitted he did bet on the Cincinnati Reds while managing the team in the late 1980s, doesn't understand why the rules, unless changed, won't allow him to ever appear on the annual ballot of the Baseball Writers' Association of America.
"How can I be on a list that expires after 15 years if I'm suspended?" Rose said Sunday in comments relayed to the Associated Press through his manager, Warren Greene. "It should be that time stops."
Rose, baseball's career hits leader, agreed to a lifetime ban in August 1989 following an investigation of his gambling, and the Hall's board of directors decided unanimously in February 2001 that anyone on the permanently ineligible list couldn't appear on the BBWAA ballot.
Rose applied for reinstatement in September 1997 and met with Selig in November 2002. His efforts to end his suspension appeared to falter after he admitted in his 2004 autobiography, Pete Rose: My Prison Without Bars, that his previous gambling denials were false.
"The matter remains on the commissioner's desk. He has given no indication that he's prepared to issue a formal decision," DuPuy said.
Rose's final season as a player was 1986, and the rules for the Hall's BBWAA ballot state that players must have been retired for at least five years but no more than 20 to be eligible for election.
He received nine write-in votes in 2005, his lowest total, and has been written in on 239 of 6,687 ballots (3.6 percent) over 14 years.
Jane Forbes Clark, the Hall's chairman, left open the possibility that the Hall would give a Rose a chance to appear on the writers' ballot if he ever regains reinstatement.
"I think that we would look at the situation if the commissioner changes the situation and the position of Major League Baseball," she said. "If something happens, we'll react to it."
In 1989, just after baseball's investigation began, Rose considered himself a shoo-in for the Hall.
"4,256 hits. 2,200 runs. That's all I did," he said. "I'm a Hall of Famer."
Now 64, Rose might never get in despite a career in which he became a 17-time All-Star and the 1973 NL MVP.
"It would be a great honor if I made the Hall of Fame," he said through Greene. "If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't."
Sure is. All these goons juiced up on roids, breaking each others' records have proved that.
Rose did bet on the game, that's for sure. But Selig put up with a decade of blatant steroid use, from McGwire, to Sosa, to Bonds, reaping the financial rewards of these phony home run races. He did NOTHING until Congress forced him to.
I think Rose should be in the Hall, only because his accomplishments were from raw talent and drive and hustle, not from popping pills every morning.
It should be all or none. Keeping Rose out because he cheated AND is unpopular, while letting Bonds play even though his cheating is virtually certain, is inconsistent behavior and does nothing for the integrity of the game.
I'm sorry, but you have it wrong again. It's not about keeping Rose out because "he cheated AND is unpopular." Not at all. Rose's defenders point to his popularity among fans as a reason for his reinstatement.
It's about the standard punishments for rule infractions. We can argue whether or not steroid use should result in a lifetime ban (personally, I agree), but that's not what the rules say now. The rules reserve that punishment for gambling, and have since before Rose was born.
There have always been different punishments for different levels of cheating. Pitchers caught with sandpaper, for example, don't get the same punishment as steroid users do.
The reason for this, I believe, is that all the other methods of cheating - from Vaseline on the ball to steroids in the veins - are about trying to win games. Players who bet on games will try to lose games if it helps their bet. Even if they don't play to lose, they might play to change the spread. In either case, you have someone in uniform whose goal is not to win the game. That's a big difference.
Regardless of why baseball has different policies for gambling and other infractions. None of this changes the basic fact that Rose knew the consequences, he cheated anyway, and when caught he lied about it loudly for over a decade. He professed his innocence even though he knew he was guilty. Now he admits that he was guilty of x, but not of y. He broke the rule, the punishment is clear, and he has to take the punishment.
You don't believe in holding people accountable for their actions?
The rule on betting on baseball is posted in every clubhouse. So is the mandatory punishment.
Should we let Pete alone skate because he was really good? What about personal responsibility?
We disagree here. Rose gambled but there is no proof that any of his gambling affected the outcome of any game. In contrast, steroid use has probably affected the outcome of every single game played in the past two decades; there is certainly ample proof that many games were affected by it. Which is more damaging?
Even if Rose bet on his team to win when he was manager, that means he could hurt his team long-term to win one game he had a bet on that game. For example, using a closer for the final two innings to win a game, but then not having him available for the next two games because of overwork.
Gambling is, for the reason I stated above.
Don't get me wrong. Steroids are a cancer on the game, and steroid use should result in a lifetime ban.
But a manager who bets on his own games can influence the outcome to suit his pocketbook and not the best interests of the club. We don't know that Rose didn't, in fact, rest his best hitters on days when he needed a certain spread. We don't know if he gave hitters the "take" sign or influence baserunning in order to preserve the margin of other team's lead or his own.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. Steroids are a red herring. This is about personal responsibility. Those were the rules, he knew those were the rules, he knowingly broke the rules, and now he wants to be let out of the consequences. He only admitted some of his lies when he had a financial interest in admitting them. I say no. I believe in personal responsibility, and Rose refuses to take full responsibility for his actions.
Is there evidence that any of his "betting" influenced any of these games?
When he was a player, is there evidence he slacked off so that the Reds would lose?
The lords of baseball keep their radar up about gambling on games, but sit on their fat butts while ballplayers balloon up over the off-season and hit tape measure shots impossible the year before.
You purists haven't noticed that the game of baseball hasn't had any integrity for many years now, and it has nothing to do with gambling.
You'll keep Rose out, but applaud when McGwire and Sosa and Bonds and Palmeiro get voted in.
It's a sham, highball, and one of the reasons I don't go to major league games any longer.
None of that addresses in any way the simple fact that Rose knew that betting on games would result in a ban, decided to bet on games knowing what the consequences would be, and now refuses to take personal responsibility for his actions.
We can agree that the rules are silly. But that doesn't mean that they aren't the rules. He knew it, he broke it, and he has to pay the price for it.
100% agreement. Any argument based on the integrity of MLB is absurd on its face.
There are plenty of anti-steroids rules in baseball. Everything you say about Rose applies equally to steroids users in baseball, yet MLB hides its head in the sand. If they made even a modest attempt to clean up their act then they would have some ground to stand on in denying Rose his place in the HoF.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree.
I never said there weren't anti-steroids rules. Obviously there are, and players are held accountable for breaking them. I don't think the punishments are high enough (even with the new suspensions), but they are what they are.
The rule against gambling has been on the books for nearly a century, and the punishment for it is well known. You appear to want to exempt Pete Rose for that punishment.
If punishment for some rulebreaking isn't sufficient, does that mean we can't hold people responsible for breaking other rules?
This is about personal responsibility. Rose knew the punishment, he did the crime, now he wants to be excused from that punishment.
Count me among those who think McGwire, Bonds, and any other steroid user should not only not be eligible for the Hall, but should have all those records stripped from them, PLUS a lifetime ban.
Agreed. We need MORE lifetime bans, not fewer.
It looks extremely selective, to me. The only reason Bonds et al are not treated the same is because they appear to be making lots of money for MLB. But what is really happening is that lifelong baseball fans like me have become so disgusted that they have lost me as a customer permanently, and lost their claim to be America's pastime.
Silly? They're ridiculous and allow players and management to hide behind "gambling" as being the unforgiveable sin, while the lifetime home run record is broken by a drug-user who has suffered not one bit but, in fact, is lauded for his prowess.
Selig still has his foot on Rose's neck while doing NOTHING about steroid use until Congress intervenes.
As I said, you guys who stick your chests out because you argue that Pete Rose should never be in the Hall won't argue the same for the parade of mutants who are going to scrambling to get in over the next ten years.
I am saying that they should be banned. I've said it several times on this thread.
You're the one saying that we shouldn't punish people according to the rule book. I cannot agree.
So in response to that, you're arguing for holding fewer ballplayers accoutable for their actions?
No, what I am doing is holding MLB itself accountable for its actions by ceasing to be its customer.
That's another issue altogether. And one on which you and I are in agreement.
Other than your just being mad with baseball, what does that really have to do with holding Rose accountable for his actions?
But you get them after the horse is out of the barn.
The season home run record is, and the lifetime home run record will be, a sham because MLB relished all the attention and money that came to the game over the last ten years. Selig and his minions thought we fans were idiots, that we would see it as perfectly natural for an athlete to put on 30 pounds of muscle in six months and take his season HR output from 40 to 65.
I grew up on Pete Rose, watching him run from home plate to first on a single hit to the outfield, hearing that he was the first player to take batting practice EVERY DAY, even after he passed Ty Cobb on the all-time hits chart. I coached a junior league team and used Rose for a model. Hell, I'd take nine Pete Rose's if I were a major league manager.
Yes, he bet on baseball and he is being made to suffer for it.
These cartoon characters that pass for ball players today and how they don't even get a slap on the wrist for using drugs reminds me of the old saw speculating about how many Catholics are doing time in hell today for eating meat on Friday when it's no longer something that draws the ultimate penalty.
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.