If there’s one thing baseball should do is stick to its guns on this! Rose endangered the integrity of the game with his self-centered behavior. He doesn’t actually give a damn about anything except himself…his protects aside.
The rule Rose broke is posted in every damn clubhouse in baseball all the way down to the lowest rungs of the minor leagues. Betting on baseball will get you removed from the game forever.
But apparently forever doesn’t mean quite as much as it once did. I always knew Bud Selig (MLB Commissioner) was a weasel-mouthed softhead but this is beyond the pale?
I hope people continually graffiti ‘LIAR’ on his Hall of Fame plaque.
I’m an Aussie, and baseball isn’t even a major sport down here due to cricket having got it’s foot in the doot first, but even I know the story about Pete Rose and his shitty shenanigans.
It would be a sad day for the game if that guy gets forgiven I rather think.
My understanding is this: Pete Rose at first admitted he bet on baseball, then turned around and denied it. Is that right?
What proof is there that he bet on baseball or bet on or against his own team besides this recanted admission?
And please, don’t give me any of this “integrity of the game” stuff. It’s all kinds of farked up that drug abusers and wife beaters and racists get a free pass but gamblers are scorned.
Bud Selig, you are the juiciest pimple on the backside of a neo-Nazi crack whore.
Fine. Let him manage the Reds. I don’t really like the Reds anyway, and he’s the WORST FUCKING MANAGER I’ve ever seen, even when he’s not throwing games.
Rose agreed to a lifetime ban for ‘improprieties’ provided he didn’t admit to gambling and the commisisoner at the time (Bart Giamatti) agreed to the deal if Rose promised to never challenge the ruling.
Rose broke the agreement about 20 minutes into it and Giamatti declared that he HAD bet on baseball. Shortest truce in history.
He shouldn’t be readmitted to baseball. He broke what is perhaps the most unbreakable rule in all of baseball.
Interestingly enough, had he been a wife beater or child molester, he probably wouldn’t have been banned. Well, maybe, but there wouldn’t be a hue and cry over it. The difference is that what he did had a direct effect on the games in which he participated, whereas wife beating or child molesting - or even drug taking, to an extent - would not.
But perhaps there’s some sunlight here, anyway. Selig isn’t going to be there forever. If he can overturn a ban, then the next commissioner can overturn the overturning.
Oh, it’ll happen. Why wouldn’t it? The people who want Rose back say that betting on his team is no big deal, or they argue that “Rose didn’t be on baseball!”
Why wouldn’t people like that hire him? The Reds will. And he’ll manage like shit (again), and the Reds will lose (again) and who knows? He might even write his name into the lineup some more so that he can increase his lead as the biggest outmaker in the history of the game.
Bah.
I thought the worst thing Bud Selig would ever do was 1994. Then I thought it was the bullshit about contraction. Now, I know how naive I really am. I never thought anyone would willingly reinstate Rose until he was at or near death.
You have no idea what the phrase “integrity of the game” means.
Wife beaters playing baseball do not threaten the integrity of the game. Racists playing baseball do not affect the integrity of the game.
There may well be good reasons to ban or otherwise discipline such players. But that’s not relevant to this discussion. The integrity of the game is threatened when a player or manager is in a position in which their own personal interests are adverse to the team’s interest in success on the field.
What can’t happen? That the next commissioner will overturn it?
A commissioner can overturn anything; he or she needs no evidence to do so. They rule with impunity.
Look at the reaction of the various owners to this news - if you see more than a few express reservations (assuming Rose is to be reinstated), then you can be certain that when the new commissioner comes in - handpicked by the owners - he’ll at least lend an ear toward resuming the ban.
MLB can say who’s on the restricted list. But the Hall of Fame is independent of MLB. Once he’s in he’s in.
And overturning this would be astonishingly difficult once he’s in place.
I think this is all coming from Carl Lindner, owner of the Reds. He lusts after the marketing potential inherent in having Rose associated with the team again.