Your statement is not precisely correct. For the sake of ensuring we know why Rose is banned, the rule in actuality is Rule 21 (d). The basics are:
A person who bets on a game in which he has a duty to perform - e.g. is a player, manager, or coach for a team playing the game - is placed on the permanently ineligible list. e.g. banned for life.
A person who bets on a game in which they do NOT have a duty to perform - so if Rose, say, had really never bet on any game involving the Reds - is suspended for one year.
That is not for the commissioner to decide; the Hall of Fame is a separate, private institution that could, technically, name Pete Rose the Pope of Baseball if it wanted to. Of course they never would, but it’s not Bud Selig’s call. Not entirely, anyway - I think he’s a voting member of the Board.
Prior to 1991 (I think it was 1991) in fact, there was no rule saying a banned player COULDN’T be elected to the Hall of Fame. The rule was instituted by the Hall of Fame in part because they were worried Rose would be elected.
Well, exactly. I don’t think Bob Costas could explain it any better. Once Rose bets on his own games, everything he does is poisoned with doubt.
Rose’s position is fundamentally the same as someone who is fired for committing a conflict of interest. I knew a guy who was VP at a company I used to work for; they found he was giving small contracts for IT work to his nephew. He was walked out the door the next day. It wasn’t anything personal; they didn’t think he was stealing, they didn’t call the cops. It was simply that he had created a conflict of interest; his actions conflated, and potentially put into conflict, his financial benefit with the company’s. Every reputable company’s response to that is the same: Here’s your coat, there’s the door, don’t come back.
MLB basically did that to Pete Rose. This isn’t about punishing Pete Rose; it’s not about inflicting pain on the man for doing something bad. It’s simply a business protecting itself by dismissing an employee who deliberately created an extremely serious conflict of interest.
Now, whether or not Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame is a different issue. As I pointed out, it’s a separate institution. Having a Pete Rose plaque doesn’t threaten baseball with a gambling problem, and it’s not like the memory of Pete Rose is purged from the place - he’s mentioned a hundred times in the museum.
Well, anytime you’re talking about violent basball players, Ty Cobb is a good guess, but the best evidence seems to indicate that he never actually murdered anyone, despite rumours. See, for example:
Which, I think, caused a lot more Pete Rose talk than there should have been. I wish that Selig could have told Pete he is not welcome in MLB, and not have people asking that he rethink it because Pete should be in the HOF.
The HOF should be making its own decision whether or not to allow him to be on the ballot, and take the heat for that decision alone.
Why not let him be in the HOF, and mention the gambling and subsequent ban right on his plaque?
Well, maybe that’s how baseball should be. A section for records that you’re pretty sure were clean, then a separate section for people like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Pete Rose, etc. The Hall of Infamy, so to speak.
I think that might be exactly what Costas proposed- the standard plaque, but with a phrase like “Banned for life for xyz…” in two-inch letters across the bottom of the plaque.
I would probably agree with that. It’s such a tough call because of the MAN, as well as the man’s stats. Jerks never seem to get the benefit of the doubt, do they? ::cough:: Barry Bonds ::cough::
Wow, Rose seems to be losing it. Still, he deserves to be in the Hall. As a player he was stellar and no one played harder. So I think that the Hall shold recognize play on the field. If we want to induct him into the Asshole Hall of Fame as well, he’s given us good reason to do that, too.
I’m a 43-year-old fan from the early days of the “Big Red Machine,” and I can attest to the fact that Pete’s gambling has been known to me since I was ten or so. I never heard anything about betting on baseball, but always heard that he liked to bet on the races, etc. Hell, in a book aimed at the 12-14-year-old crowd published around 1977 or so, Pete himself (well, his co-writer) goes into detail about his method of handicapping horses.
There’s a legend around here (don’t know if it was originally an interview with one of them or not) that goes like this. Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan were sitting around one day back in the mid-70s, and began to speculate on what they would do when they retired. Joe expressed a desire to go into broadcasting. Johnny expressed a desire to venture into the business world.
Pete Rose walked by. “What do you think Pete will do when his playing days are over?” Johnny asks Joe. Joe answers without having to think about it. “Gamble himself to death!”