And his every decision and action since then has confirmed that it was the right thing to do. When I was a kid, Pete Rose was my hero. We don’t need heroes like this. Consequences for one’s actions should be clear.
He was mine, too.
Bart Giamatti knew what he was doing. At the time his decision seemed to be correct according to the rules; it is now clear that his decision saved baseball from a lot of further anguish and internal problems. Rose has absolutely refused to accept responsibility or change his ways. He was a great ballplayer but he is a pathetic, broken man who can’t be trusted to give you the correct time of day.
Sadly true.
There was quite a bit of cocaine use in MLB in the late '70s and '80s. I think someone already mentioned the '86 Mets upthread; there were a number of players (primarily members of the Pirates) who were implicated in the 1985 trial of several drug dealers, including Raines. Some of the involved players were suspended.
Giamatti did seem to know what he was doing. I don’t disagree with banning Rose, but a lifetime ban is harsh. If he had received several previous warnings or there was any evidence of blowing games, it would be more reasonable. Are these things true? I accept Rose knew what he was doing and the league would not consider a ban of an all-star lightly. In fact, Giamattii died of an MI very shortly afterward, which was probably a coincidence.
But Hall of Fame is, to me, a separate issue, and even if Rose was difficult, I think he has a better case here. It’s not like he didn’t perform for decades. Regardless of jerkitude and severe problems, including addictions.
The series mentions some, but not all, of the above players as using cocaine. In so far as the series unfairly slanders some people based on tall tales, this might be concerning. I wouldn’t recommend anyone use cocaine. I have never used it myself. But again, I largely see addiction as a medical problem with social implications. Addicts require treatment and rehabilitation.
Strictly speaking, Giamatti didn’t ban Rose from the Hall of Fame. The HOF banned people who are ineligible to participate in MLB. They could reverse that ban tomorrow, whether or not MLB reinstates Rose.
There are warnings posted prominently in every clubhouse in the league.
And, as @Kent_Clark noted in post #108:
There is no way Rose did not know that betting on baseball was a serious violation of MLB’s rules. NO WAY. He saw those signs every day; he sat through those lectures every spring.
And, yet, he did it, on an ongoing basis, for years – I read part of the Dowd Report last night, and Dowd found that Rose had been regularly gambling on baseball games, through several bookies and intermediaries, at least as far back as 1984.
This wasn’t just a matter of a couple of bets. Rose bet on baseball games, again and again, for five years or more, all the while knowing that it was one of the most serious transgressions that one could engage in as a member of MLB, and one that carries an automatic lifetime ban.
I agree, there’s no reason why Rose should have received “official warnings” before the ban, especially because, when the commissioner did approach him about it, Rose did nothing but deny and stonewall.
There is no rule against baseball players gambling. Baseball players can bet on horse racing, golf matches, football games, presidential elections. . . anything at all EXCEPT on baseball itself.
Dr. Paprika, this is not the hill you want to die on.
The series said Rose sometimes lost $500,000 in a season. That clearly places him at high risk for conflict of interest. I think Giamatti did the right thing. I’m not sure the Hall of Fame did, though.
If someone’s conduct is bad enough to get banned from baseball for life, why do you think they should be honored in the Hall of Fame?
Obviously baseball has made up its mind. And the Hall of Fame in the end is not that important. But answer me this: does anyone support Rose?
A bunch of dunderhead fellow-Cincinnati-fans. Nobody who counts.
Also, think of it this way. Why does baseball ban betting on baseball? Because it almost destroyed the sport in 1920. They had to work hard to get their reputation back. It’s the whole reason the Commissioner of Baseball exists. The Blacksox eight were banned for life and banned from the Hall of Fame. So there’s good precedent for Rose’s punishment.
And Rose has never, ever, ever come clean. He has never admitted what he did. He reneged on a deal to tell the truth in exchange for some degree of break. He has been a complete lying bastard ever since. There’s zero reason to sympathise with him and there’s zero reason to honor him with something like the Hall of Fame.
Also, remember that he was betting on his own team. Above the conflict of interest was mentioned. It is suspected he might have risked the careers of some of his pitchers trying to ensure that he won bets. Even if it didn’t actually happen, that kind of conflict of interest is one reason for the ban.
Just want to observe that baseball has aggressive and passive defensive schemes as well. In addition to the shifts alluded to upthread, outfielders playing deep to prevent extra base hits, corner infielders guarding the lines for the same reasons. One can get deep in the semantics/traditions all one wants, but in both sports the pitching/bowling team cannot score, only the one with the bat.
Yes, there are Rose fans who believe his accomplishments outweigh his flaws. In 1999 fans voted him one of the 100 greatest players of the Century. There’s still a street named Pete Rose Way in Cincinnati. And neither MLB nor the HOF has denied him his records - he’s still recognized as having more hits than any other player.
IMHO Rose has made out better than Shoeless Joe Jackson.
Ironically enough, the Hall is apparently hugely important to Rose. He has always had a huge ego (which is not uncommon among top athletes), and he has, for 40 years, been completely obsessed about the fact that he’s MLB’s all-time leader in base hits, and that he was a lock for being immortalized in Cooperstown.
I suspect that that is why he hasn’t let it go, and that he’s continued to plead his case (and complain about perceived unfair treatment) – being admitted to the Hall is the ultimate affirmation of his career, and something that he feels has been unjustly denied to him.
This post makes meaningless distinctions. The team that has ability to score during that part of the innings and whose overall goal is to score is on the offense, the batting team, regardless of what mighty be happening in a particular play. The team that cannot score and who’s even overall goal is to prevent the other team from accumulating runs, The non-batting team, is on the defense. There’s no reasonable definition of these terms that would change this.
If a batsman is protecting a wicket, it’s to preserve es side’s ability to remain on the offensez. It’s an offensive action.
You shouldn’t think of this as being about the person, or their conduct, being BAD. That isn’t the point.
The reason Rose was banned from baseball is because he was a risk. He was dangerous. That is how it is with conflicts of interest; you cannot trust a person with an undeclared conflict of interest to do the right thing. Baseball gets rid of people who gamble on baseball not because gambling is bad, but because gambling on baseball presents an unacceptable ongoing risk.
There’s no conflict of interest situation with him having a plaque in the Hall of Fame.
This is becoming a pointless hijack and I apologise to everyone for it. If anyone wants to start a separate thread about offense and defense in cricket, I will happy to be explain in more detail why the people who know the game are right and the people who don’t are not.
Your post makes sense except for the first line. Being inducted into the HoF is a great honour. Why should we honour someone who did all these bad things? That is the point.
Then again, OJ Simpson remains in the NFL HoF, so clearly there isn’t a lot of consistency across sports here.
I appreciate there is a school of thought that Rose is famous for his achievements on the field - possibly, more so than his transgressions off it - and so should be in the HoF. Personally, I’m fine with him not being in it. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say those who thought otherwise were wrong to think that.